scholarly journals Development of a cost-effectiveness model for optimisation of the screening interval in diabetic retinopathy screening

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (74) ◽  
pp. 1-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter H Scanlon ◽  
Stephen J Aldington ◽  
Jose Leal ◽  
Ramon Luengo-Fernandez ◽  
Jason Oke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
East Anglia ◽  
Effective Screening ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Screening Intervals ◽  
Qaly Threshold

BackgroundThe English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services.ObjectivesTo determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective.DesignRisk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium–low, medium–high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations.SettingGloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK).ParticipantsPeople with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia.Main outcome measuresPersonalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals.ResultsData were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43 –48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55–59%.ConclusionsThe study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading.Study registrationIntegrated Research Application System project number 118959.Funding detailsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Screening and Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Among Healthcare Workers at Low, Moderate, and High Risk for Tuberculosis Exposure: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1056-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley R. Salpeter ◽  
Edwin E. Salpeter
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Tuberculosis Case ◽  
Effective Screening ◽  
Screening Interval

AbstractObjective:To evaluate cost-effective screening and treatment strategies for healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk for tuberculosis exposure.Design:A Markov model was developed to track three hypothetical cohorts of HCWs at low, moderate, and high risk for tuberculosis exposure. For those found to be tuberculin reactors at entry, the choice was for isoniazid treatment or no treatment. For those without tuberculin reactivity, the choice of screening intervals was 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years. Outcomes measured were tuberculosis cases, death, life expectancy, and cost. Assumptions were derived from published data and analyses.Results:Treatment of initial reactors with isoniazid in all three risk groups was associated with a net savings of $14,800 to $15,700 for each tuberculosis case prevented. For those without evidence of infection at entry, the most cost-effective screening interval was 1 year for high-risk groups, 2 years for moderate-risk groups, and 5 years for low-risk groups, with a net savings $0.20 to $26 per HCW per year. Screening at a more frequent interval was still cost-effective.Conclusions:For HCWs found to be tuberculin reactors, treatment of their latent infection is to their benefit and is associated with a net cost-savings. Regular tuberculin screening of HCWs can be cost-effective or result in a net cost-savings. Each institution could use its own skin test surveillance data to create an optimum screening program for its employees. However, for most HCWs, a 1-year screening interval would be a cost-effective and safe choice.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group Screening Guidelines to Prevent Heart Failure in Survivors of Childhood Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (33) ◽  
pp. 3851-3862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Ehrhardt ◽  
Zachary J. Ward ◽  
Qi Liu ◽  
Aeysha Chaudhry ◽  
Anju Nohria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Late Effects ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
Survivors Of Childhood Cancer

PURPOSE Survivors of childhood cancer treated with anthracyclines and/or chest-directed radiation are at increased risk for heart failure (HF). The International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group (IGHG) recommends risk-based screening echocardiograms, but evidence supporting its frequency and cost-effectiveness is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS Using the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and St Jude Lifetime Cohort, we developed a microsimulation model of the clinical course of HF. We estimated long-term health outcomes and economic impact of screening according to IGHG-defined risk groups (low [doxorubicin-equivalent anthracycline dose of 1-99 mg/m2 and/or radiotherapy < 15 Gy], moderate [100 to < 250 mg/m2 or 15 to < 35 Gy], or high [≥ 250 mg/m2 or ≥ 35 Gy or both ≥ 100 mg/m2 and ≥ 15 Gy]). We compared 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year interval-based screening with no screening. Screening performance and treatment effectiveness were estimated based on published studies. Costs and quality-of-life weights were based on national averages and published reports. Outcomes included lifetime HF risk, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Strategies with ICERs < $100,000 per QALY gained were considered cost-effective. RESULTS Among the IGHG risk groups, cumulative lifetime risks of HF without screening were 36.7% (high risk), 24.7% (moderate risk), and 16.9% (low risk). Routine screening reduced this risk by 4% to 11%, depending on frequency. Screening every 2, 5, and 10 years was cost-effective for high-risk survivors, and every 5 and 10 years for moderate-risk survivors. In contrast, ICERs were > $175,000 per QALY gained for all strategies for low-risk survivors, representing approximately 40% of those for whom screening is currently recommended. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that refinement of recommended screening strategies for IGHG high- and low-risk survivors is needed, including careful reconsideration of discontinuing asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction and HF screening in low-risk survivors.

scholarly journals Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Alsdurf ◽  
B. Empringham ◽  
C. Miller ◽  
A. Zwerling
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Molecular Diagnostic ◽  
Systematic Screening ◽  
Structural Risk

Abstract Background Systematic screening for active tuberculosis (TB) is a strategy which requires the health system to seek out individuals, rather than waiting for individuals to self-present with symptoms (i.e., passive case finding). Our review aimed to summarize the current economic evidence and understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of systematic screening approaches among high-risk groups and settings. Methods We conducted a systematic review on economic evaluations of screening for TB disease targeting persons with clinical and/or structural risk factors, such as persons living with HIV (PLHIV) or persons experiencing homelessness. We searched three databases for studies published between January 1, 2010 and February 1, 2020. Studies were included if they reported cost and a key outcome measure. Owing to considerable heterogeneity in settings and type of screening strategy, we synthesized data descriptively. Results A total of 27 articles were included in our review; 19/27 (70%) took place in high TB burden countries. Seventeen studies took place among persons with clinical risk factors, including 14 among PLHIV, while 13 studies were among persons with structural risk factors. Nine studies reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from US$51 to $1980 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Screening was most cost-effective among PLHIV. Among persons with clinical and structural risk factors there was limited evidence, but screening was generally not shown to be cost-effective. Conclusions Studies showed that screening is most likely to be cost-effective in a high TB prevalence population. Our review highlights that to reach the “missing millions” TB programmes should focus on simple, cheaper initial screening tools (i.e., symptom screen and CXR) followed by molecular diagnostic tools (i.e., Xpert®) among the highest risk groups in the local setting (i.e., PLHIV, urban slums). Programmatic costs greatly impact cost-effectiveness thus future research should provide both fixed and variable costs of screening interventions to improve comparability.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness and Screening Interval of Lipid Screening in Hodgkin's Lymphoma Survivors

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (32) ◽  
pp. 5383-5389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aileen B. Chen ◽  
Rinaa S. Punglia ◽  
Karen M. Kuntz ◽  
Peter M. Mauch ◽  
Andrea K. Ng
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Mediastinal Irradiation ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Lipid Screening ◽  
Screening Intervals ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Purpose Survivors of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) who received mediastinal irradiation have an increased risk of coronary heart disease. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of lipid screening in survivors of HL and compared different screening intervals. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate lipid screening in a hypothetical cohort of 30-year-old survivors of HL who survived 5 years after mediastinal irradiation. We compared the following strategies: no screening, and screening at 1-, 3-, 5-, or 7-year intervals. Screen-positive patients were treated with statins. Markov models were used to calculate life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime costs. Baseline probabilities, transition probabilities, and utilities were derived from published studies and US population data. Costs were estimated from Medicare fee schedules and the medical literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved, lipid screening at every interval was cost effective relative to a strategy of no screening. When comparing screening intervals, a 3-year interval was cost effective relative to a 5-year interval, but annual screening, relative to screening every 3 years, had an ICER of more than $100,000/QALY saved. Factors with the most influence on the results included risk of cardiac events/death after HL, efficacy of statins in reducing cardiac events/death, and costs of statins. Conclusion Lipid screening in survivors of HL, with statin therapy for screen-positive patients, improves survival and is cost effective. A screening interval of 3 years seems reasonable in the long-term follow-up of survivors of HL.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background: To determine the best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in a healthy population, HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness were considered.Methods: State transition models were built to study the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health population. Age was stratified into 30-44-, 45-59-, and 60-74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-25 kg/m2), overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obese (≥30 kg/m2). In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were compared to evaluate costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared intervals annually (current Japanese strategy), every three years (US and UK recommendations) and tailored to each risk stratification group, based on our previous work. All model parameters, including screening and treatment costs, complications and mortality rates and utilities, were applied from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY.Results: The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in a healthy population varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obese groups at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45-59: $11,849/QALY, 60-74: $8,685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60-74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45-59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than three years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, QALY does not show much difference among any groups.Conclusions: Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not apply to any population. The three-year screening interval was optimal among all elderly populations, the obese groups of all ages and the overweight 45-59-year-old group. For the low BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval can be longer than three years.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background: To determine the best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in a healthy population, HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness were considered.Methods: State transition models were built to study the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health population. Age was stratified into 30-44-, 45-59-, and 60-74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5-25 kg/m2), overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obesity (≥30 kg/m2). In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were compared to evaluate costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We compared intervals annually (current Japanese strategy), every three years (US and UK recommendations) and tailored to each risk stratification group, based on our previous work. All model parameters, including screening and treatment costs, complications and mortality rates and utilities, were applied from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY.Results: The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in a healthy population varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obesity at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45-59: $11,849/QALY, 60-74: $8,685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60-74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45-59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than three years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, QALY does not show much difference among any groups.Conclusions: Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not apply to any population. The three-year screening interval was optimal among all elderly populations, the obesity at all ages and the overweight 45-59-year-old group. For the low BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval can be longer than three years.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Risk Groups Tuberculosis Screening in Malaysia

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nor Zam Azihan Mohd Hassan ◽  
Asmah Razali ◽  
Mohd Ridzwan Shahari ◽  
Mohd Shaiful Jefri Mohd Nor Sham Kunusagaran ◽  
Juanita Halili ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Cost Effective Strategy ◽  
The Cost

Screening of high-risk groups for Tuberculosis (TB) is considered as the cornerstone for TB elimination but the measure of cost-effectiveness is also crucial in deciding the strategy for TB screening. This study aims to measure the cost-effectiveness of TB screening between the various high-risk groups in Malaysia. A decision tree model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TB screening among the high-risk groups from a provider perspective using secondary data from the year 2016 to 2018. The results are presented in terms of an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per TB case detected. Deterministic and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis was also performed to measure the robustness of the model. TB screening among Person Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PL HIV) was the most cost-effective strategy, with MYR 2,597.00 per TB case detected. This was followed by elderly, prisoners and smokers with MYR 2,868.62, MYR 3,065.24, and MYR 4,327.76 per one TB case detected, respectively. There was an incremental cost of MYR 2.49 per screening, and 3.4 TB case detection per 1,000 screening for TB screening among PL HIV in relation to TB screening among prisoners. The probability of symptomatic cases diagnosed as TB was the key driver for increasing cost-effectiveness efficacy among PL HIV. Results of the study suggest prioritization of high-risk group TB screening program by focusing on the most cost-effective strategy such as screening among PL HIV, prisoners and elderly, which has a lower cost per TB case detected.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Of High-Risk Group Tb Screening In Malaysia

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nor Zam Azihan Mohd Hassan ◽  
Asmah Razali ◽  
Mohd Ridzwan Shahari ◽  
Mohd Shaiful Jefri Mohd Nor Sham Kunusagaran ◽  
Juanita Halili ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Cost Effective Strategy ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Screening of high-risk groups for TB is considered as the cornerstone for TB elimination but the measure of cost-effectiveness is also crucial in deciding the strategy for TB screening. This study aims to measure the cost-effectiveness of TB screening between the various high-risk groups in Malaysia.Methods: A decision tree model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TB screening among the high-risk group from provider perspective using a secondary data from year 2016 to 2018. The outcome is presented in term of cost per TB case detected and the ICER. Deterministic and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis were also performed to measure the robustness of the model.Results: The most cost-effective strategy was TB screening among PL HIV, with MYR 2,597.00 per one TB case detected. This is followed by elderly, prisoners and smokers with MYR 2,868.62, MYR 3,065.24 and MYR 4,327.76 per one TB case detected respectively. There was an incremental costs of MYR 2.49 per screening, and 3.4 TB case detection per 1000 screening for TB screening among PL HIV in relation to TB screening among prisoners. The probability of symptomatic cases diagnosed as TB was the key driver for increasing cost effectiveness efficacy among PL HIV.Conclusions: Results of the study suggest prioritization of high-risk group TB screening programme by focusing on the most cost-effective strategy such as screening among PL HIV, prisoners and elderly, which has lower cost per TB case detected.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis for HbA1c test intervals to screen patients with type 2 diabetes based on risk stratification

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachiko Ohde ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Osamu Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Test Interval ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Hba1c Test ◽  
Younger Age ◽  
Low Bmi

Abstract Background The best HbA1c test interval strategy for detecting new type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cases in healthy individuals should be determined with consideration of HbA1c test characteristics, risk stratification towards T2DM and cost effectiveness. Methods State transition models were constructed to investigate the optimal screening interval for new cases of T2DM among each age- and BMI-stratified health individuals. Age was stratified into 30–44-, 45–59-, and 60–74-year-old age groups, and BMI was also stratified into underweight, normal, overweight and obesity. In each model, different HbA1c test intervals were evaluated with respect to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Annual intervals (Japanese current strategy), every 3 years (recommendations in US and UK) and intervals which are tailored to each risk stratification group were compared. All model parameters, including costs for screening and treatment, rates for complications and mortality and utilities, were taken from published studies. The willingness-to-pay threshold in the cost-effectiveness analysis was set to US $50,000/QALY. Results The HbA1c test interval for detecting T2DM in healthy individuals varies by age and BMI. Three-year intervals were the most cost effective in obesity at all ages—30-44: $15,034/QALY, 45–59: $11,849/QALY, 60–74: $8685/QALY—compared with the other two interval strategies. The three-year interval was also the most cost effective in the 60–74-year-old age groups—underweight: $11,377/QALY, normal: $18,123/QALY, overweight: $12,537/QALY—and in the overweight 45–59-year-old group; $18,918/QALY. In other groups, the screening interval for detecting T2DM was found to be longer than 3 years, as previously reported. Annual screenings were dominated in many groups with low BMI and in younger age groups. Based on the probability distribution of the ICER, results were consistent among any groups. Conclusions The three-year screening interval was optimal among elderly at all ages, the obesity at all ages and the overweight in 45–59-year-old group. For those sin the low-BMI and younger age groups, the optimal HbA1c test interval could be longer than 3 years. Annual screening to detect T2DM was not cost effective and should not be applied in any population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document