Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia. DESIGN:Cost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated. PARTICIPANTS:Simulated population aged 16-54 years in England and Wales. INTERVENTIONS:Identification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Cost effectiveness calculated as cost per life year gained (extension of life expectancy resulting from intervention) including estimated costs of screening and treatment. RESULTS:Tracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (3097 pounds sterling (euros 5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of 133 pounds sterling per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (4914 pounds sterling ) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (13 029 pounds sterling per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of 9754 pounds sterling per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (2777 pounds sterling with a clinical confirmation). CONCLUSIONS:Screening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population.

SUBMITTER: Marks D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC113765 | biostudies-literature | 2002 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Marks Dalya D Wonderling David D Thorogood Margaret M Lambert Helen H Humphries Steve E SE Neil H Andrew W HA

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20020601 7349

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia.<h4>Design</h4>Cost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated.<h4>Participants</h4>Simulated population aged 16-54 years in England and Wales.<h4>Interventions</h4>Identification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic s ...[more]

PMID: 12039822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

Project description:Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible vision loss and costs the American economy $2.9 billion. Teleglaucoma remotely detects glaucoma improving access to ophthalmic care in rural areas. It helps manage glaucoma more efficiently to preserve vision and reduce healthcare costs. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using healthcare provider or third-party payer perspective within rural Canada. The study population were patients at-risk of glaucoma which includes those with diabetes and/or hypertension, family history of glaucoma, adults older than 50 years, and concurrent ocular conditions in rural Alberta. Markov modelling was used to model glaucoma health states. Effectiveness was measured in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and costs were used in Canadian dollars. Using TreeAge Pro 2009, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were developed in dollars per QALYs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the factors affecting cost-effectiveness. Teleglaucoma had a 20% increase in ophthalmologist-referral rate; it reduced patient travel times by 61 hours and physician wait times by 30% in comparison to in-person examination (standard of care). Teleglaucoma costs $872 per patient screened which was 80% less than in-person examination. Teleglaucoma had a greater incremental effectiveness providing an additional 0.12 QALY per patient examination. It was more sensitive (86.5%) and less specific (78.6%) than in-person examination. Teleglaucoma was more cost-effective than in-person examination with an ICER of-$27,460/QALY. This indicated that teleglaucoma will save $27, 460 for each additional QALY gained. Long term benefits showed teleglaucoma prevents 24% cases of glaucoma blindness after 30 years. Teleglaucoma demonstrated improved health outcomes, as well as, cost benefits. It increases access to ophthalmic care and improves healthcare service efficiency, specifically in rural areas. Teleglaucoma is more cost-effective than current in-person examination and can improve the quality of life in glaucoma patients.

Project description:ImportanceFor women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied.InterventionsSeveral screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography).Main outcomes and measuresCosts, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied.ResultsThis economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

Project description:Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder, causing lifelong elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Most individuals with FH remain undiagnosed, precluding opportunities to prevent premature heart disease and death. Some machine-learning approaches improve detection of FH in electronic health records, though clinical impact is under-explored. We assessed performance of an array of machine-learning approaches for enhancing detection of FH, and their clinical utility, within a large primary care population. A retrospective cohort study was done using routine primary care clinical records of 4,027,775 individuals from the United Kingdom with total cholesterol measured from 1 January 1999 to 25 June 2019. Predictive accuracy of five common machine-learning algorithms (logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting machines, neural networks and ensemble learning) were assessed for detecting FH. Predictive accuracy was assessed by area under the receiver operating curves (AUC) and expected vs observed calibration slope; with clinical utility assessed by expected case-review workload and likelihood ratios. There were 7928 incident diagnoses of FH. In addition to known clinical features of FH (raised total cholesterol or LDL-C and family history of premature coronary heart disease), machine-learning (ML) algorithms identified features such as raised triglycerides which reduced the likelihood of FH. Apart from logistic regression (AUC, 0.81), all four other ML approaches had similarly high predictive accuracy (AUC > 0.89). Calibration slope ranged from 0.997 for gradient boosting machines to 1.857 for logistic regression. Among those screened, high probability cases requiring clinical review varied from 0.73% using ensemble learning to 10.16% using deep learning, but with positive predictive values of 15.5% and 2.8% respectively. Ensemble learning exhibited a dominant positive likelihood ratio (45.5) compared to all other ML models (7.0-14.4). Machine-learning models show similar high accuracy in detecting FH, offering opportunities to increase diagnosis. However, the clinical case-finding workload required for yield of cases will differ substantially between models.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious health economic studies recommend either a dual screening strategy [tuberculin skin test (TST) followed by interferon-gamma-release assay (IGRA)] or a single one [IGRA only] for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), the former largely based on claims that it is more cost-effective. We sought to examine that conclusion through the use of a model that accounts for the additional costs of adverse drug reactions and directly compares two commercially available versions of the IGRA: the Quantiferon-TB-Gold-In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB.MethodsA LTBI screening model directed at screening contacts was used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis, from a UK healthcare perspective, taking into account the risk of isoniazid-related hepatotoxicity and post-exposure TB (2 years post contact) using the TST, QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB IGRAs.ResultsExamining costs alone, the TST/IGRA dual screening strategies (TST/T-SPOT.TB and TST/QFT-GIT; 162,387 pounds and 157,048 pounds per 1000 contacts, respectively) cost less than their single strategy counterparts (T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT; 203,983 pounds and 202,921 pounds per 1000 contacts) which have higher IGRA test costs and greater numbers of persons undergoing LTBI treatment. However, IGRA alone strategies direct healthcare interventions and costs more accurately to those that are truly infected.Subsequently, less contacts need to be treated to prevent an active case of TB (T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT; 61.7 and 69.7 contacts) in IGRA alone strategies. IGRA single strategies also prevent more cases of post-exposure TB. However, this greater effectiveness does not outweigh the lower incremental costs associated with the dual strategies. Consequently, when these costs are combined with effectiveness, the IGRA dual strategies are more cost-effective than their single strategy counterparts. Comparing between the IGRAs, T-SPOT.TB-based strategies (single and dual; 39,712 pounds and 37,206 pounds per active TB case prevented, respectively) were more cost-effective than the QFT-GIT-based strategies (single and dual; 42,051 pounds and 37,699 pounds per active TB case prevented, respectively). Using the TST alone was the least cost-effective (47,840 pounds per active TB case prevented). Cost effectiveness values were sensitive to changes in LTBI prevalence, IGRA test sensitivities/specificities and IGRA test costs.ConclusionA dual strategy is more cost effective than a single strategy but this conclusion is sensitive to screening test assumptions and LTBI prevalence.

Dataset Information

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Publications

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets