scholarly journals Cost effectiveness of targeted exome analysis as a diagnostic test in glomerular diseases

Author(s):  
Kushani Jayasinghe ◽  
You Wu ◽  
Zornitza Stark ◽  
Peter G. Kerr ◽  
Andrew J. Mallett ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Alexandra McAleenan ◽  
Hayley E Jones ◽  
Ashleigh Kernohan ◽  
Claire L Faulkner ◽  
Abigail Palmer ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 145 (6) ◽  
pp. 1107-1117 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. SHAH ◽  
M. ROJAS ◽  
O. MORI ◽  
C. ZAMUDIO ◽  
J. S. KAUFMAN ◽  
...  

SUMMARYWe compared the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an active case-finding (ACF) programme for household contacts of tuberculosis (TB) cases enrolled in first-line treatment to routine passive case-finding (PCF) within an established national TB programme in Peru. Decision analysis was used to model detection of TB in household contacts through: (1) self-report of symptomatic cases for evaluation (PCF), (2) a provider-initiated ACF programme, (3) addition of an Xpert MTB/RIF diagnostic test for a single sputum sample from household contacts, and (4) all strategies combined. CE was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of US dollars per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Compared to PCF alone, ACF for household contacts resulted in an ICER of $2155 per DALY averted. The addition of the Xpert MTB/RIF diagnostic test resulted in an ICER of $3275 per DALY averted within a PCF programme and $3399 per DALY averted when an ACF programme was included. Provider-initiated ACF of household contacts in an urban setting of Lima, Peru can be highly cost-effective, even including costs to seek out contacts and perform an Xpert/MTB RIF test. ACF including Xpert MTB/RIF was not cost-effective if TB cases detected had high rates of default from treatment or poor outcomes.


1999 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 1752-1761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuzuru Takemura ◽  
Haku Ishida ◽  
Yuji Inoue ◽  
J Robert Beck

Abstract Background: The Japan Society of Clinical Pathology (JSCP) has developed a guideline for common diagnostic test utilization in new primary care outpatients. To determine the scientific and economic validity of the JSCP panel testing system, we analyzed cost-effectiveness parameters of test panels advocated. Methods: The “Essential Laboratory Tests” panel (2) [ELT(2) panel], a package of common diagnostic tests added to the ELT(1) baseline health-status screening panel, was applied to 540 new outpatients who visited the Comprehensive Medicine Clinics in an academic medical center during 1991 to 1997. A “useful result” (UR) of testing was defined as a finding that contributed to a change in a physician’s diagnosis- or decision-making, relating to a “tentative initial diagnosis” (TID) obtained from history and physical examination alone. Results: Clinical usefulness was demonstrated in 259 patients with ELT(2), in whom 398 URs were generated. Clinical effectiveness (UR/TID) ranged from 1.65 (hematological) to 0.088 (neurological disease), with a cost disparity from ¥1251 (∼$10) to ¥23 037 (∼$200) per UR. A total of 1137 tests generated URs. We further assessed the clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency (cost/UR) of ELT(1) and restructured panels. Use of the ELT(1) alone generated 244 URs in 167 patients. The poor efficiency of the ELT(1) panel was markedly improved with the addition of certain ELT(2)-specific tests in liver/pancreatobiliary, metabolic/endocrine, and cardiovascular disease groups. Conclusions: A wide disparity in the utility of ELT panels in different patient groups does not support the JSCP recommendation of their routine use for new outpatients. Selective test combinations should be used in selected patient groups.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document