Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Anatomic vs Functional Index Testing in Patients With Low-Risk Stable Chest Pain.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Both noninvasive anatomic and functional testing strategies are now routinely used as initial workup in patients with low-risk stable chest pain (SCP).

Objective

To determine whether anatomic approaches (ie, coronary computed tomography angiography [CTA] and coronary CTA supplemented with noninvasive fractional flow reserve [FFRCT], performed in patients with 30% to 69% stenosis) are cost-effective compared with functional testing for the assessment of low-risk SCP.

Design, setting, and participants

This cost-effectiveness analysis used an individual-based Markov microsimulation model for low-risk SCP. The model was developed using patient data from the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. The model was validated by comparing model outcomes with outcomes observed in the PROMISE trial for anatomic (coronary CTA) and functional (stress testing) strategies, including diagnostic test results, referral to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), coronary revascularization, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and costs during 60 days and 2 years. The validated model was used to determine whether anatomic approaches are cost-effective over a lifetime compared with functional testing.

Exposure

Choice of index test for evaluation of low-risk SCP.

Main outcomes and measures

Downstream ICA and coronary revascularization, MACE (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction), cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of competing strategies.

Results

The model cohort included 10 003 individual patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60.0 [54.4-65.9] years; 5270 [52.7%] women; 7693 [77.4%] White individuals), who entered the model 100 times. The Markov model accurately estimated the test assignment, results of anatomic and functional index testing, referral to ICA, revascularization, MACE, and costs at 60 days and 2 years compared with observed data in PROMISE (eg, coronary CTA: ICA, 12.2% [95% CI, 10.9%-13.5%] vs 12.3% [95% CI, 12.2%-12.4%]; revascularization, 6.2% [95% CI, 5.5%-6.9%] vs 6.4% [95% CI, 6.3%-6.5%]; functional strategy: ICA, 8.1% [95% CI, 7.4%-8.9%] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.1%-8.3%]; revascularization, 3.2% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 3.2%-3.4%]; 2-year MACE rates: coronary CTA, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%] vs 2.3% [95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%]; functional strategy, 2.2% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.6%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.4%]). Anatomic approaches led to higher ICA and revascularization rates at 60 days, 2 years, and 5 years compared with functional testing but were more effective in patient selection for ICA (eg, 60-day revascularization-to-ICA ratio, CTA: 53.7% [95% CI, 53.3%-54.0%]; CTA with FFRCT: 59.5% [95% CI, 59.2%-59.8%]; functional testing: 40.7% [95% CI, 40.4%-50.0%]). Over a lifetime, anatomic approaches gained an additional 6 months in perfect health compared with functional testing (CTA, 25.16 [95% CI, 25.14-25.19] QALYs; CTA with FFRCT, 25.14 [95% CI, 25.12-25.17] QALYs; functional testing, 24.68 [95% CI, 24.66-24.70] QALYs). Anatomic strategies were less costly and more effective; thus, CTA with FFRCT dominated and CTA alone was cost-effective (ICERs ranged from $1912/QALY for women and $3,559/QALY for men) compared with functional testing. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, anatomic approaches were cost-effective in more than 65% of scenarios, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY.

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this study suggest that anatomic strategies may present a more favorable initial diagnostic option in the evaluation of low-risk SCP compared with functional testing.

SUBMITTER: Karady J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7737090 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Optimal management of patients with stable chest pain relies on the prognostic information provided by noninvasive cardiovascular testing, but there are limited data from randomized trials comparing anatomic with functional testing. METHODS:In the PROMISE trial (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain), patients with stable chest pain and intermediate pretest probability for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomly assigned to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress, or stress echocardiography) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). Site-based diagnostic test reports were classified as normal or mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations over a median follow-up of 26.1 months. RESULTS:Both the prevalence of normal test results and incidence rate of events in these patients were significantly lower among 4500 patients randomly assigned to CTA in comparison with 4602 patients randomly assigned to functional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P<0.001). In CTA, 54.0% of events (n=74/137) occurred in patients with nonobstructive CAD (1%-69% stenosis). Prevalence of obstructive CAD and myocardial ischemia was low (11.9% versus 12.7%, respectively), with both findings having similar prognostic value (hazard ratio, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-5.39; and 3.47; 95% CI, 2.42-4.99). When test findings were stratified as mildly, moderately, or severely abnormal, hazard ratios for events in comparison with normal tests increased proportionally for CTA (2.94, 7.67, 10.13; all P<0.001) but not for corresponding functional testing categories (0.94 [P=0.87], 2.65 [P=0.001], 3.88 [P<0.001]). The discriminatory ability of CTA in predicting events was significantly better than functional testing (c-index, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68-0.76 versus 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69; P=0.04). If 2714 patients with at least an intermediate Framingham Risk Score (>10%) who had a normal functional test were reclassified as being mildly abnormal, the discriminatory capacity improved to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64-0.74). CONCLUSIONS:Coronary CTA, by identifying patients at risk because of nonobstructive CAD, provides better prognostic information than functional testing in contemporary patients who have stable chest pain with a low burden of obstructive CAD, myocardial ischemia, and events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Project description:BackgroundConventional CTCS images the mid/lower chest for coronary artery disease (CAD). Because many CAD patients are also at risk for lung malignancy, CTCS often discovers incidental pulmonary nodules (IPN). CTCS excludes the upper chest, where malignancy is common. Full-chest CTCS (FCT) may be a cost-effective screening tool for IPN.MethodsA decision tree was created to compare a FCT to CTCS in a hypothetical patient cohort with suspected CAD. (Figure) The design compares the effects of missed cancers on CTCS with the cost of working up non-malignant nodules on FCT. The model was informed by results of the National Lung Screening Trial and literature review, including the rate of malignancy among patients receiving CTCS and the rate of malignancy in upper vs lower portions of the lung. The analysis outcomes are Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is generally considered beneficial when <$50,000/QALY.ResultsLiterature review suggests that rate of IPNs in the upper portion of the lung varied from 47 to 76%. Our model assumed that IPNs occur in upper and lower portions of the lung with equal frequency. The model also assumes an equal malignancy potential in upper lung IPNs despite data that malignancy occurs 61–66% in upper lung fields.In the base case analysis, a FCT will lead to an increase of 0.03 QALYs comparing to conventional CTCS (14.54 vs 14.51 QALY, respectively), which translates into an QALY increase of 16?days. The associated incremental cost for FCT is $278 ($1027 vs $748, FCT vs CTCS respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $10,289/QALY, suggesting significant benefit. Sensitivity analysis shows this benefit increases proportional to the rate of malignancy in upper lung fields.ConclusionConventional CTCS may be a missed opportunity to screen for upper lung field cancers in high risk patients. The ICER of FCT is better than screening for breast cancer screening (mammograms $80?k/QALY) and colon cancer (colonoscopy $6?k/QALY). Prospective studies are appropriate to define protocols for FCT.

Project description:AimsCoronary artery disease is frequently diagnosed following evaluation of stable chest pain with anatomical or functional testing. A more granular understanding of patient phenotypes that benefit from either strategy may enable personalized testing.Methods and resultsUsing participant-level data from 9572 patients undergoing anatomical (n = 4734) vs. functional (n = 4838) testing in the PROMISE (PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial, we created a topological representation of the study population based on 57 pre-randomization variables. Within each patient's 5% topological neighbourhood, Cox regression models provided individual patient-centred hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events and revealed marked heterogeneity across the phenomap [median 1.11 (10th to 90th percentile: 0.52-2.61]), suggestive of distinct phenotypic neighbourhoods favouring anatomical or functional testing. Based on this risk phenomap, we employed an extreme gradient boosting algorithm in 80% of the PROMISE population to predict the personalized benefit of anatomical vs. functional testing using 12 model-derived, routinely collected variables and created a decision support tool named ASSIST (Anatomical vs. Stress teSting decIsion Support Tool). In both the remaining 20% of PROMISE and an external validation set consisting of patients from SCOT-HEART (Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART Trial) undergoing anatomical-first vs. functional-first assessment, the testing strategy recommended by ASSIST was associated with a significantly lower incidence of each study's primary endpoint (P = 0.0024 and P = 0.0321 for interaction, respectively), as well as a harmonized endpoint of all-cause mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction (P = 0.0309 and P < 0.0001 for interaction, respectively).ConclusionWe propose a novel phenomapping-derived decision support tool to standardize the selection of anatomical vs. functional testing in the evaluation of stable chest pain, validated in two large and geographically diverse clinical trial populations.