Dataset Information

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study.

Methods

We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs.

Findings

AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life.

Interpretation

By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

SUBMITTER: Sweeting MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6087711 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince 2007, Medicare has provided one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening for men with smoking history, and men and women with a family history of AAA as part of its Welcome to Medicare visit.ObjectiveWe examined utilization of the new AAA screening benefit and estimated how increased utilization could influence population health as measured by life years gained. Additionally, we explored the impact of expanding screening to women with smoking history.DesignAnalysis of Medicare claims and a simulation model to estimate the effects of screening, using published data for parameter estimates.SettingAAA screening in the primary care setting.PatientsNewly-enrolled Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years, with smoking history or family history of AAA.Main measuresLife expectancy, 10-year survival rates.Key resultsMedicare data revealed low utilization of AAA screening, under 1% among those eligible. We estimate that screening could increase life expectancy per individual invited to screening for men with smoking history (0.11 years), with family history of AAA (0.17 years), and women with family history (0.08 years), and smoking history (0.09 years). Average gains of 131 life years per 1,000 persons screened for AAA compare favorably with the grade B United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation for breast cancer screening, which yields 95-128 life years per 1,000 women screened. These findings were robust over a range of scenarios.LimitationsThe simulation results reflect assumptions regarding AAA prevalence, treatment, and outcomes in specific populations based on published research and US survey data. Published data on women were limited.ConclusionsThe Welcome to Medicare and AAA screening benefits have been underutilized. Increasing utilization of AAA screening would yield substantial gains in life expectancy. Expanding screening to women with smoking history also has the potential for substantial health benefits.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost effectiveness of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. DESIGN:Primary analysis: four year cost effectiveness analysis based directly on results from a randomised controlled trial in which patients were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (intervention) or to a control group not offered screening. Secondary analysis: projection of the data, based on conservative assumptions, to indicate likely cost effectiveness at 10 years. SETTING:Four centres in the United Kingdom. Screening delivered in primary care settings with follow up and surgery offered in the main hospitals Participants: Population based sample of 67 800 men aged 65-74 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Mortality from and costs (screening, follow up, elective and emergency surgery) related to abdominal aortic aneurysm; cost per life year gained. RESULTS:Over four years there were 47 fewer deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysms in the screening group than in the control group, but the additional costs incurred were pound 2.2m. After adjustment for censoring and discounted at 6% the mean additional cost of the screening programme was pound 63.39 ($97.77, euro;100.48) (95% confidence interval pound 53.31 to pound 73.48) per patient. The hazard ratio for abdominal aortic aneurysm was 0.58 (0.42 to 0.78). Over four years the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio for screening was pound 28 400 ( pound 15 000 to pound 146 000) per life year gained, equivalent to about pound 36 000 per quality adjusted life year. After 10 years this figure is estimated to fall to around pound 8000 per life year gained. CONCLUSIONS:Even at four years the cost effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is at the margin of acceptability according to current NHS thresholds. Over a longer period the cost effectiveness will improve substantially, the predicted ratio at 10 years falling to around a quarter of the four year figure.

Project description:Objective To assess the three year clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of a strategy of endovascular repair (if aortic morphology is suitable, open repair if not) versus open repair for patients with suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting 30 vascular centres (29 in UK, one in Canada), 2009-16.Participants 613 eligible patients (480 men) with a clinical diagnosis of ruptured aneurysm, of whom 502 underwent emergency repair for rupture.Interventions 316 patients were randomised to an endovascular strategy (275 with confirmed rupture) and 297 to open repair (261 with confirmed rupture).Main outcome measures Mortality, with reinterventions after aneurysm repair, quality of life, and hospital costs to three years as secondary measures.Results The maximum follow-up for mortality was 7.1 years, with two patients in each group lost to follow-up by three years. After similar mortality by 90 days, in the mid-term (three months to three years) there were fewer deaths in the endovascular than the open repair group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.90), leading to lower mortality at three years (48% v 56%), but by seven years mortality was about 60% in each group (hazard ratio 0.92, 0.75 to 1.13). Results for the 502 patients with repaired ruptures were more pronounced: three year mortality was lower in the endovascular strategy group (42% v 54%; odds ratio 0.62, 0.43 to 0.88), but after seven years there was no clear difference between the groups (hazard ratio 0.86, 0.68 to 1.08). Reintervention rates up to three years were not significantly different between the randomised groups (hazard ratio 1.02, 0.79 to 1.32); the initial rapid rate of reinterventions was followed by a much slower mid-term reintervention rate in both groups. The early higher average quality of life in the endovascular strategy versus open repair group, coupled with the lower mortality at three years, led to a gain in average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at three years of 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.33). The endovascular strategy group spent fewer days in hospital and had lower average costs of -£2605 (95% confidence interval -£5966 to £702) (about €2813; $3439). The probability that the endovascular strategy is cost effective was >90% at all levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain.Conclusions At three years, compared with open repair, an endovascular strategy for suspected ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm was associated with a survival advantage, a gain in QALYs, similar levels of reintervention, and reduced costs, and this strategy was cost effective. These findings support the increasing use of an endovascular strategy, with wider availability of emergency endovascular repair.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791; ClinicalTrials NCT00746122.