Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Neuroimaging for Transient and Minor Neurological Events in the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT: Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low-risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost-effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision-analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard-of-care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost-effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard-of-care strategy, but the standard-of-care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard-of-care strategy's cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low-risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost-effective strategy in our model.

SUBMITTER: Liberman AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8477874 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsIn a recent randomized trial, patients with opioid dependence receiving brief intervention, emergency department (ED)-initiated buprenorphine and ongoing follow-up in primary care with buprenorphine (buprenorphine) were twice as likely to be engaged in addiction treatment compared with referral to community-based treatment (referral) or brief intervention and referral (brief intervention). Our aim was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of these three methods of intervening on opioid dependence in the ED.DesignMeasured health-care use was converted to dollar values. We considered a health-care system perspective and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves that indicate the probability each treatment is cost-effective under different thresholds of willingness-to-pay for outcomes studied.SettingAn urban ED in the United States.ParticipantsOpioid-dependent patients aged 18 years or older.MeasurementsSelf-reported 30-day assessment data were used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for patient engagement in formal addiction treatment at 30 days and the number of days illicit opioid-free in the past week.FindingsConsidering only health-care system costs, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate that at all positive willingness-to-pay values, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment was more cost-effective than brief intervention or referral. For example, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1000 for 30-day treatment engagement, we are 79% certain ED-initiated buprenorphine is most cost-effective compared with other studied treatments. Similar results were found for days illicit opioid-free in the past week. Results were robust to secondary analyses that included patients with missing cost data, included crime and patient time costs in the numerator, and to changes in unit price estimates.ConclusionIn the United States, emergency department-initiated buprenorphine intervention for patients with opioid dependence provides high value compared with referral to community-based treatment or combined brief intervention and referral.

Project description:ImportanceAdolescents and young adults compose almost 50% of all diagnosed sexually transmitted infection (STI) cases annually in the US. Given that these individuals frequently access health care through the emergency department (ED), the ED could be a strategic venue for examining the identification and treatment of STIs.ObjectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (chlamydia and gonorrhea) in adolescents and young adults who seek acute care at pediatric EDs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation is a component of an ongoing, larger multicenter clinical trial at the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network. A decision analytic model, created using literature-based estimates for the key parameters, was developed to simulate the events and outcomes associated with 3 strategies for screening and testing chlamydial and gonococcal infections in individuals aged 15 to 21 years who sought acute care at pediatric EDs. Data sources included published (from January 1, 1997, to December 31, 2019) English-language articles indexed in MEDLINE, bibliographies in relevant articles, insurance claims data in the MarketScan database, and reimbursement payments from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Because the events and outcomes were simulated, a hypothetical population of 10 000 ED visits by adolescents and young adults was used.InterventionsThe 3 screening strategies were (1) no screening, (2) targeted screening, and (3) universally offered screening. Targeted screening involved the completion of a sexual health survey, which yielded an estimated STI risk (at risk, high risk, or low risk).Main outcomes and measuresOutcome metrics included cost (measured in 2019 US dollars) and the detection and successful treatment of STIs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each strategy was calculated in a base case analysis. The ICER reflects the cost per case detected and successfully treated.ResultsA 3.6% prevalence of chlamydia and gonorrhea was applied to a hypothetical population of 10 000 ED visits by adolescents and young adults. Targeted screening resulted in the detection and successful treatment of 95 of 360 STI cases (26.4%) at a cost of $313 063, and universally offered screening identified and treated 112 of 360 STI cases (31.1%) at a cost of $515 503. The ICER for targeted screening vs no screening was $6444, and the ICER for universally offered screening vs targeted screening was $12 139.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that targeted screening and universally offered screening compared with no screening appeared to be cost-effective strategies for identifying and treating chlamydial and gonococcal infections in adolescents and young adults who used the ED for acute care. Universally offered screening was associated with detecting and successfully treating a higher proportion of STIs in this population.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Advanced Neuroimaging for Transient and Minor Neurological Events in the Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets