scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Azithromycin and Doxycycline forChlamydia TrachomatisInfection in Women: A Canadian Perspective

1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawziah Marra ◽  
Carlo A Marra ◽  
David M Patrick
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Pelvic Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Hypothetical Cohort ◽  
Chlamydia Infection ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Diagnostic Strategies ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of azithromycin versus doxycycline therapy for cervicalChlamydia trachomatisinfections in Canada.DESIGN: A predictive decision analytic model using previously published clinical and economic evaluations, expert opinion and costs of medical care in Canada.POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of 5000 women followed over 10 years.INTERVENTIONS: Two diagnostic strategies were compared, laboratory confirmed diagnosis (LCD) and presumptive diagnosis (PD) ofC trachomatisinfection. Under each strategy, two treatment alternatives were analyzed, a single 1 g dose of azithromycin and a seven-day course of doxycycline as 100 mg twice daily.RESULTS: Despite a fourfold higher acquisition cost, under base case conditions, for both diagnostic strategies, the azithromycin treatment alternative was more cost effective than the doxycycline alternative. For the LCD model, the cost per cure for patients receiving azithromycin was $184.76 compared with $240.59 for patients receiving doxycycline, resulting in an incremental cost of $55.83. For the PD model, the cost per cure for patients treated with azithromycin was $51.48 compared with $51.82, resulting in an incremental cost of $0.34. For the hypothetical cohort of 5000 women, the use of azithromycin translates into a projected annual cost savings of $279,150 and $1,700 for the LCD and PD models, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analyses for the LCD model, no clinically plausible changes in the base case estimates changed the results of the cost effectiveness outcome. In the PD model, clinically plausible changes in the probabilities of doxycycline cure, pelvic inflammatory disease, sequelae and chlamydia infection were found to alter the cost effectiveness outcome.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results from our model, the azithromycin strategy should be employed for the treatment of laboratory confirmed cases. However, for presumptive cases, azithromycin should be used only if the probabilities ofC trachomatisand pelvic inflammatory disease are more than 19%, doxycycline effectiveness is less than 78%, or the cost of azithromycin is less than $19.00.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals An Economic Evaluation of a Comprehensive School-Based Caries Prevention Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.S. Huang ◽  
R.R. Ruff ◽  
R. Niederman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Caries Prevention ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
School Based ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Current economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth. Methods: To calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Results: We first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway’s treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, –$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, –$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, –$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, –$239.77). Conclusions: This study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.

scholarly journals Sustained acoustic medicine as a non-surgical and non-opioid knee osteoarthritis treatment option: a health economic cost-effectiveness analysis for symptom management

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Best ◽  
Stephanie Petterson ◽  
Kevin Plancher
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) and presenting with symptoms are seeking conservative treatment options to reduce pain, improve function, and avoid surgery. Sustained acoustic medicine (SAM), a multi-hour treatment has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes for patients with knee OA. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the costs and effectiveness of multi-hour SAM treatment versus the standard of care (SOC) over a 6-month timeframe for OA symptom management. Methods A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and effectiveness of SAM treatment versus SOC in patients with OA. Probabilities of success for OA treatment and effectiveness were derived from the literature using systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and manufacturer prices. Functional effectiveness was measured as the effect size of a therapy and treatment pathways compared to a SOC treatment pathway. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which cost variables had the greatest effect on deciding which option was the least costly. An incremental cost-effectiveness plot comparing SAM treatment vs. SOC was also generated using 1000 iterations of the model. Lastly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the (cost of SAM minus cost of SOC) divided by (functional effectiveness of SAM minus functional effectiveness of SOC). Results Base case demonstrated that over 6 months, the cost and functional effectiveness of SAM was $8641 and 0.52 versus SOC at: $6281 and 0.39, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that in order for SAM to be the less expensive option, the cost per 15-min session of PT would need to be greater than $88, or SAM would need to be priced at less than or equal to $2276. Incremental cost-effectiveness demonstrated that most of the time (84%) SAM treatment resulted in improved functional effectiveness but at a higher cost than SOC. Conclusion In patients with osteoarthritis, SAM treatment demonstrated improved pain and functional gains compared to SOC but at an increased cost. Based on the SAM treatment ICER score being ≤ $50,000, it appears that SAM is a cost-effective treatment for knee OA.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1045-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Oldridge ◽  
Rod S Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
The Cost

Aims Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost–utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. Results Of 19 incremental cost–utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‘highly cost-effective’ or ‘high value’, with 26% ‘not cost-effective’ or of ‘low value’. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. Conclusions The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic gastric and esophageal tumors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Michael Lawrence Dougan ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

56 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has shown early promising results in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic or advanced tumors of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and stomach. We explore the cost-effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors as second-line treatment agents for this group of patients using a decision analytic approach. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the course of a virtual cohort of patients treated by (i) nivolumab 3 mg/kg, (ii) combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg, and (iii) best supportive care (BSC). Patients in the hypothetical cohort were 55-year-olds in an advanced/metastatic stage who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients who remained stable in treatment were monitored for adverse events until death. Rates of cancer-specific mortality, disease progression, and drug-related adverse events were estimated using results from the CheckMate 032 clinical trial. The primary endpoints were survival, measured in life-years (LY), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from a US-payer perspective considering costs of drugs, treatment, and management of immune-related adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was defined with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded the highest effectiveness (QALYs = 0.47, LYs = 1.09) in our base case modeling results, compared with nivolumab (QALYs = 0.43, LYs = 1.03), and BSC (QALYs = 0.19, LYs = 0.42). Nivolumab had an incremental cost of $84,555/QALY compared with BSC, while nivolumab with ipilimumab resulted in an incremental cost of $1.1M/QALY compared with nivolumab alone. The cost gap between the two was associated with the higher price of ipilimumab, and costs of managing increased toxicity. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that combination therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab is the most effective, but from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is expensive, making nivolumab monotherapy the cost-effective option. Additional clinical data are needed to confirm our modeling results.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost–utility analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Kuukasjärvi ◽  
Pirjo Räsänen ◽  
Antti Malmivaara ◽  
Pasi Aronen ◽  
Harri Sintonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Drug Eluting Stents ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost–utility of DES.Methods:Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost–utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.Results:We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost €4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs €3,260.Conclusions:The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) versus tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TafaL) in ASCT-transplant ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): Economic evaluation including novel metrics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19535-e19535
Author(s):  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

scholarly journals Exploration of the difference in results of economic submissions to the National Institute of Clinical Excellence by manufacturers and assessment groups

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deven Chauhan ◽  
Alec H. Miners ◽  
Alastair J. Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Technology Appraisal ◽  
Single Technology Appraisal ◽  
Cost Estimates ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:A recent study showed that estimates of cost-effectiveness submitted to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) by manufacturers had significantly lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) than those submitted by university-based Assessment Groups. This study extends that analysis.Methods:Data were abstracted from relevant NICE documentation for thirty-two of eighty-two possible appraisals.Results:The results from the analysis showed that sources of the difference in ICERs appear to be the effectiveness estimates relating to the comparator technology and the cost estimates relating to the technology under evaluation. That is, manufacturers estimated lower average benefits for the comparator technology and lower costs relating to the technology under evaluation compared with estimates submitted by the Assessment Groups.Conclusions:These findings may be particularly important, given the introduction of the “Single Technology Appraisal.” Considerable difficulties were encountered when undertaking this study, highlighting, above all else, the complexity of explaining why results from economic evaluations purporting to answer the same question diverge.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Zhang ◽  
Housne A. Begum ◽  
Himmat Grewal ◽  
Itziar Etxeandia Ikobaltzeta ◽  
Gian Paolo Morgano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Diagnostic Strategies ◽  
Pulmonary Angiogram ◽  
The Cost ◽  
D Dimer

Guideline developers consider cost-effectiveness evidence in decision making to determine value for money. This consideration in the guideline development process can be informed either by formal and dedicated economic evaluations or by systematic reviews of existing studies. To inform the American Society of Hematology guideline on the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), we conducted a systematic review focused on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for VTE within the guideline scope. We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry, summarized, and critically appraised the economic evidence on diagnostic strategies for VTE. We identified 49 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 26 on pulmonary embolism (PE) and 24 on deep vein thrombosis (DVT). For the diagnosis of PE, strategies including D-dimer to exclude PE were cost-effective compared to strategies without D-dimer testing. The cost-effectiveness of CT pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in relation to ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was inconclusive. CTPA or V/Q scan following ultrasound or D-dimer results could be cost-effective or even cost saving. For DVT, studies supporting strategies with D-dimer and/or ultrasound were cost-effective, supporting the recommendation that for patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using D-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. Our systematic review informed the ASH guideline recommendations about D-dimer, V/Q scan and CTPA for PE diagnosis and D-dimer and ultrasound for DVT diagnosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document