Dataset Information

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care.

ABSTRACT: Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital.A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care.Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4400 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to a "do nothing" strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses.This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection.

SUBMITTER: Monahan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5483229 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid on-site diagnosis facilitates tuberculosis control. Performing Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) at point of care is feasible, even when performed by minimally trained health-care workers, and when compared with point-of-care smear microscopy, reduces time to diagnosis and pretreatment loss to follow-up. However, whether Xpert is cost-effective at point of care remains unclear. METHODS:We empirically collected cost (US$, 2014) and clinical outcome data from participants presenting to primary health-care facilities in four African countries (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania) during the TB-NEAT trial. Costs were determined using an bottom-up ingredients approach. Effectiveness measures from the trial included number of cases diagnosed, initiated on treatment, and completing treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of point-of-care Xpert relative to smear microscopy. The study was performed from the perspective of the health-care provider. FINDINGS:Using data from 1502 patients, we calculated that the mean Xpert unit cost was lower when performed at a centralised laboratory (Lab Xpert) rather than at point of care ($23·00 [95% CI 22·12-23·88] vs $28·03 [26·19-29·87]). Per 1000 patients screened, and relative to smear microscopy, point-of-care Xpert cost an additional $35?529 (27?054-40?025) and was associated with an additional 24·3 treatment initiations ([-20·0 to 68·5]; $1464 per treatment), 63·4 same-day treatment initiations ([27·3-99·4]; $511 per same-day treatment), and 29·4 treatment completions ([-6·9 to 65·6]; $1211 per completion). Xpert costs were most sensitive to test volume, whereas incremental outcomes were most sensitive to the number of patients initiating and completing treatment. The probability of point-of-care Xpert being cost-effective was 90% at a willingness to pay of $3820 per treatment completion. INTERPRETATION:In southern Africa, although point-of-care Xpert unit cost is higher than Lab Xpert, it is likely to offer good value for money relative to smear microscopy. With the current availability of point-of-care nucleic acid amplification platforms (eg, Xpert Edge), these data inform much needed investment and resource allocation strategies in tuberculosis endemic settings. FUNDING:European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.MethodsHospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.ResultsOf 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization.ConclusionsA CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02858674.

Dataset Information

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets