Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A cluster-randomized trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and societal perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster-level data were constructed. The base-case analysis used the net benefit regressions approach. The 2-stage nonparametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis.

Results

The base-case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALY differential -0.029 [95% confidence interval -0.062, 0.003]). In the base-case analyses, general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost-effective option (probability <5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Prompting general practitioners to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OA is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically effective and cost-effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA.

SUBMITTER: Kigozi J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563477 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Kigozi Jesse J Jowett Sue S Nicholl Barbara I BI Lewis Martyn M Bartlam Bernadette B Green Daniel D Belcher John J Clarkson Kris K Lingard Zoe Z Pope Christopher C Chew-Graham Carolyn A CA Croft Peter P Hay Elaine M EM Peat George G Mallen Christian D CD

Arthritis care & research 20181201 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA).<h4>Methods</h4>A cluster-randomized trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and so ...[more]

PMID: 29609205

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]).ConclusionsIn this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common liver disease in Western countries. No studies have examined the cost-effectiveness of screening its advanced form, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS:We performed a cost-utility analysis of annual noninvasive screening strategies using third-party payer perspective in a general population in comparison to screening a high-risk obese or diabetic population. Screening algorithms involved well-studied techniques, including NAFLD fibrosis score, transient elastography (TE), and acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging for detecting advanced fibrosis (? F3); and plasma cytokeratin (CK)-18 for NASH detection. Liver biopsy and magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) were compared as confirmation methods. Canadian dollar (CAD or C$) costs were adjusted for inflation and discounted at 5%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ?C$ 50,000 was considered cost-effective. RESULTS:Compared with no screening, screening with NAFLD fibrosis score/TE/CK-18 algorithm with MRE as confirmation for advanced fibrosis had an ICER of C$ 26,143 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations was more cost-effective, with an ICER of C$ 9,051 and C$ 7,991 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. Liver biopsy confirmation was not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS:Our model suggests that annual NASH screening in high-risk obese or diabetic populations can be cost-effective. KEY POINTS:• This cost-utility analysis suggests that screening for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis may be cost-effective. • In particular, screening of high-risk obese or diabetic populations is more cost-effective. • Magnetic resonance elastography was more cost-effective to confirm disease compared to biopsy. • More studies are needed to determine quality of life in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. • More management strategies for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are also needed.

Project description:BackgroundIn France, roughly 40,000 HIV-infected persons are unaware of their HIV infection. Although previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in the United States, differences in both the epidemiology of infection and HIV testing behaviors warrant a setting-specific analysis for France.Methods/principal findingsWe estimated the life expectancy (LE), cost and cost-effectiveness of alternative HIV screening strategies in the French general population and high-risk sub-populations using a computer model of HIV detection and treatment, coupled with French national clinical and economic data. We compared risk-factor-based HIV testing ("current practice") to universal routine, voluntary HIV screening in adults aged 18-69. Screening frequencies ranged from once to annually. Input data included mean age (42 years), undiagnosed HIV prevalence (0.10%), annual HIV incidence (0.01%), test acceptance (79%), linkage to care (75%) and cost/test (€43). We performed sensitivity analyses on HIV prevalence and incidence, cost estimates, and the transmission benefits of ART. "Current practice" produced LEs of 242.82 quality-adjusted life months (QALM) among HIV-infected persons and 268.77 QALM in the general population. Adding a one-time HIV screen increased LE by 0.01 QALM in the general population and increased costs by €50/person, for a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of €57,400 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). More frequent screening in the general population increased survival, costs and CERs. Among injection drug users (prevalence 6.17%; incidence 0.17%/year) and in French Guyana (prevalence 0.41%; incidence 0.35%/year), annual screening compared to every five years produced CERs of €51,200 and €46,500/QALY.Conclusions/significanceOne-time routine HIV screening in France improves survival compared to "current practice" and compares favorably to other screening interventions recommended in Western Europe. In higher-risk groups, more frequent screening is economically justifiable.

Dataset Information

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets