Dataset Information

Sarcopenia screening strategies in older people: a cost effectiveness analysis in Iran.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Sarcopenia is an important age-related disease which can lead to an increased risk of mortality, falls, fractures, and poor quality of life. So, timely detection can be effective in reducing the burden of disease. The aim of this study was to identify the most cost-effective strategy for sarcopenia screening in Iran.

Materials and methods

We constructed a Markov transition model over a life-time horizon based on natural history. Compared strategies included Sarcopenia scoring assessment models (SarSA-Mod), European working group on sarcopenia in older people (EWGSOP), Mini sarcopenia risk assessment (MSRA) and SARC-F. Parameters values were extracted from primary data and the literature, and the costs and Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each strategy. Sensitivity analysis of uncertain parameters was also performed to determine the robustness of the model. Analysis was performed using 2020 version of TreeAge Pro software.

Results

All four screening strategies increased life time QALYs. After removing dominated strategy, the incremental cost per QALY gained for sarcopenia screening varied from $1875.67 for EWGSOP to $1898.33 for MSRA. Our base-case analysis showed that the most cost-effective strategy was EWGSOP and 2nd best was SarSA-Mod with $43,414.3 and $42,663.3 net monetary benefits given one GDP per capita ($5520.311) as willingness to pay, respectively. Sensitivity analysis of model parameters also showed robustness of results.

Conclusions

The results of the study, as the first economic evaluation of sarcopenia screening, showed that the EWGSOP strategy is more cost-effective than other strategies.

SUBMITTER: Darvishi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8127291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Osteoporosis affects many men, with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the best osteoporosis screening strategies for men are unknown. We developed an individual-level state-transition cost-effectiveness model with a lifetime time horizon to identify the cost-effectiveness of different osteoporosis screening strategies for US men involving various screening tests (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA]; the Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool [OST]; or a fracture risk assessment strategy using age, femoral neck bone mineral density [BMD], and Vertebral Fracture Assessment [VFA]); screening initiation ages (50, 60, 70, or 80 years); and repeat screening intervals (5 years or 10 years). In base-case analysis, no screening was a less effective option than all other strategies evaluated; furthermore, no screening was more expensive than all strategies that involved screening with DXA or the OST risk assessment instrument, and thus no screening was "dominated" by screening with DXA or OST at all evaluated screening initiation ages and repeat screening intervals. Screening strategies that most frequently appeared as most cost-effective in base-case analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses when assuming willingness-to-pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $100,000/QALY included screening initiation at age 50 years with the fracture risk assessment strategy and repeat screening every 10 years; screening initiation at age 50 years with fracture risk assessment and repeat screening every 5 years; and screening initiation at age 50 years with DXA and repeat screening every 5 years. In conclusion, expansion of osteoporosis screening for US men to initiate routine screening at age 50 or 60 years would be expected to be effective and of good value for improving health outcomes. A fracture risk assessment strategy using variables of age, femoral neck BMD, and VFA is likely to be the most effective of the evaluated strategies within accepted cost-effectiveness parameters. DXA and OST are also reasonable screening options, albeit likely slightly less effective than the evaluated fracture risk assessment strategy. © 2016 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:Background and aimsCurrent guidelines recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening of individuals with a familial history of CRC. The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of screening alternatives in this population.MethodsEight screening strategies were compared with no screening: fecal immunochemical test (FIT), Stool DNA and blood-based screening every 2 years, colonoscopy, computed tomography colonography, colon capsules, and sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy at 45 years followed, if negative, by FIT every 2 years. Screening test and procedures performance were obtained from the literature. A microsimulation model reproducing the natural history of CRC was used to estimate the cost (€2018) and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of each strategy. A lifetime horizon was used. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5% annually.ResultsCompared with no screening, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy at a 30% uptake were the most effective strategy (46.3 and 43.9 QALY/1000). FIT at a 30 µg/g threshold with 30% uptake was only half as effective (25.7 QALY). Colonoscopy was associated with a cost of €484,000 per 1000 individuals whereas sigmoidoscopy and FIT were associated with much lower costs (€123,610 and €66,860). Incremental cost-effectiveness rate for FIT and sigmoidoscopy were €2600/QALY (versus no screening) and €3100/QALY (versus FIT), respectively, whereas it was €150,000/QALY for colonoscopy (versus sigmoidoscopy). With a lower threshold (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake of 45%, FIT was more effective and less costly than colonoscopy at a 30% uptake and was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4240/QALY versus no screening.ConclusionAt 30% uptake, current screening is the most effective screening strategy for high-risk individuals but is associated with a high ICER. Sigmoidoscopy and FIT at lower thresholds (10 µg/g) and a higher uptake should be given consideration as cost-effective alternatives.Plain language summaryCost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening strategies in high-risk individuals Fecal occult blood testing with an immunochemical test (FIT) is generally considered as the most cost-effective alternative in colorectal cancer screening programs for average risk individuals without family history.Current screening guidelines for high-risk individuals with familial history recommend colonoscopy every 3-5 years.Colonoscopy every 3-5 years for individuals with familial history is the most effective strategy but is associated with a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Compared with colonoscopy, if screening based on FIT is associated with a higher participation rate, it can achieve a similar effectiveness at a lower cost.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-(AI) based diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening system in the primary care setting for both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people living with diabetes in Australia.MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis between January 01, 2022 and August 01, 2023. A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to simulate DR progression in a population of 1,197,818 non-Indigenous and 65,160 Indigenous Australians living with diabetes aged ≥20 years over 40 years. From a healthcare provider's perspective, we compared current practice to three primary care AI-based screening scenarios-(A) substitution of current manual grading, (B) scaling up to patient acceptance level, and (C) achieving universal screening. Study results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), benefit-cost ratio (BCR), and net monetary benefits (NMB). A Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of AU$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and a discount rate of 3.5% were adopted in this study.FindingsWith the status quo, the non-Indigenous diabetic population was projected to develop 96,269 blindness cases, resulting in AU$13,039.6 m spending on DR screening and treatment during 2020-2060. In comparison, all three intervention scenarios were effective and cost-saving. In particular, if a universal screening program was to be implemented (Scenario C), it would prevent 38,347 blindness cases, gain 172,090 QALYs and save AU$595.8 m, leading to a BCR of 3.96 and NMB of AU$9,200 m. Similar findings were also reported in the Indigenous population. With the status quo, 3,396 Indigenous individuals would develop blindness, which would cost the health system AU$796.0 m during 2020-2060. All three intervention scenarios were cost-saving for the Indigenous population. Notably, universal AI-based DR screening (Scenario C) would prevent 1,211 blindness cases and gain 9,800 QALYs in the Indigenous population, leading to a saving of AU$19.2 m with a BCR of 1.62 and NMB of AU$509 m.InterpretationOur findings suggest that implementing AI-based DR screening in primary care is highly effective and cost-saving in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.FundingThis project received grant funding from the Australian Government: the National Critical Research Infrastructure Initiative, Medical Research Future Fund (MRFAI00035) and the NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1175405). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a participating institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC. This work was supported by the Global STEM Professorship Scheme (P0046113), the Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Project of Investigation on Health Status of Employees in Financial Industry in Guangzhou, China (Z012014075). The Centre for Eye Research Australia receives Operational Infrastructure Support from the Victorian State Government. W.H. is supported by the Melbourne Research Scholarship established by the University of Melbourne. The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

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:BackgroundAt a time when the world's population is aging, one of the most important challenges for the healthcare field is to control the decline of the musculoskeletal system. This decline consists of a reduction in muscle mass and function, which is called sarcopenia and is associated with adverse health outcomes. Although there has been an increase in the number of publications on sarcopenia and its consequences, the reported prevalence varies widely, since these depend on the characteristics of the population studied, the definitions found in the literature and the cut-off points adopted. In this perspective, the heterogeneity in the classification and the different reference values has a critical impact on the epidemiology of sarcopenia, since neither the procedures, the components and the cut-off points are consistent.ObjectivesTo develop cut-off points for the screening of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people residents in the northeast of Brazil and compare the prevalences between the values defined by the consensus and the values of the population studied.MethodsCommunity-dwelling older men and women living in three cities in the countryside of Rio Grande do Norte were evaluated. Cutoff points were defined for the variables used to screen for sarcopenia (handgrip strength, SMI, gait speed and SPPB) using the 20th percentile of their population distributions.ResultsThe sample was composed of 1,290 older people (62.5% female and 37.5% male), with an average of 69.5 (± 6.05) years of age. Regarding the cutoff points, the handgrip values were defined as 25.3 kg and 16 kg for men and women, respectively. Considering the SMM adjusted according to their height, the values of 7.88 kg/m2 were adopted for men and 5.52 kg/m2 for women. When adjusting by BMI we obtained 0.73 kg/BMI for men and 0.41 kg/BMI for women. For gait speed it was defined 0.71 m/s for men and 0.63 m/s for women. In the case of SPPB, the result was the same for both genders (≤8). When applying the values found in the studied population, a variation in prevalence was observed for both men and women, depending on the cut-off points and consensus used.ConclusionThe cutoff values found in our population were lower than those adopted by international consensus (EWGSOP2, IWGS and FNIH), except for HGS in woman and SMI/m2 for men. Therefore, using specific cutoff points for different populations can provide an accurate assessment of the presence of sarcopenia and better target health prevention strategies for the older people living in the community.

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.

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.