OP60 Optimising Risk-Based Screening: The Case Of Diabetic Eye Disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Christopher Sampson ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
David Whynes ◽  
Antonio Eleuteri ◽  
Simon Harding
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Risk Calculation ◽  
Diabetic Eye Disease ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Level Of Risk

Introduction:There is growing evidence that many people attending annual screening for diabetic retinopathy in the United Kingdom (UK) are at low risk of developing the disease. This has led to new policy statements. However, the basis on which to establish a risk-based individualized variable-recall screening program has not yet been determined. We present a methodology for using information on an individual's risk factors to improve the allocation of resources within a screening program.Methods:We developed a patient-level state-transition model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of risk-based screening for diabetic retinopathy in the UK. The model incorporated a recently developed risk calculation engine that predicts an individual's risk of disease onset, and allocated individuals to alternative screening recall periods according to this level of risk. Using the findings, we demonstrate a means of estimating: (i) a threshold level of risk, above which individuals should be invited to screening, and (ii) the optimum screening recall period for an individual, based on the expected cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment.Results:The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that standardized screening (current practice) is the least cost-effective program. Individualized screening can improve outcomes at a reduced cost. We found it feasible – though computationally expensive – to incorporate a risk calculation engine into a decision model in Microsoft Excel. In an optimized screening program, the majority or patients would be invited to attend screening at least two years after a negative screening result.Conclusions:Individualized risk-based screening is likely to be cost-effective in the context of diabetic eye disease in the UK. It is expected that risk calculation engines will be developed in other disease areas in the future, and used to allocate screening and treatment at the individual level. It is important that researchers develop robust methods for combining risk calculation engines into decision analytic models and health technology assessment more broadly.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Mydriatic Ultrawide- Field Fundus Photography versus Pharmacological Pupil Dilatation in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a domestic violence and abuse training and support programme in primary care in the real world: updated modelling based on an MRC phase IV observational pragmatic implementation study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e021256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estela Capelas Barbosa ◽  
Talitha Irene Verhoef ◽  
Steve Morris ◽  
Francesca Solmi ◽  
Medina Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Uncertainty Interval ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Training And Support ◽  
Domestic Violence And Abuse ◽  
Service Perspective ◽  
Health Service Perspective

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon.Design and settingCost–utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England.ParticipantsBased on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older.InterventionsThe IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context.ResultsThe IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval −£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval −0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.ConclusionThe IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is considerable uncertainty surrounding these results, reflected in the large uncertainty intervals.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine in treatment of chronic pain using competing EQ-5D weights

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Norrlid ◽  
Peter Dahm ◽  
Gunnel Ragnarson Tennvall
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Annual Treatment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Annual Treatment Cost

AbstractBackground and aimsChronic pain is a life altering condition and common among elderly persons. The 7-day buprenorphine patch could be a suitable treatment for managing chronic pain of moderate severity in elderly patients in Sweden.The objective of this analysis was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the 7-day buprenorphine patch, versus no treatment, in patients >50 years old who suffer from moderate pain in a health economic perspective. An additional aim was to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness is affected by the choice of EQ-5D weights.MethodsThe annual treatment cost and the potential gains in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of buprenorphine, compared to no treatment, were evaluated. Original EQ-5D data were collected from four clinical reference studies at baseline and at the final visit. Treatment effects on HRQoL were then assessed using both UK and Swedish EQ-5D weights. Annual treatment costs were calculated based on costs of physician visits and pharmaceuticals.The optimal treatment dose was 10-15 μg/h and the analysis was hence performed on both a 10- and a 15 μg/h buprenorphine patch.ResultsThe analysis of buprenorphine treatment resulted in improved HRQoL in all reference studies, irrespective of choice of EQ-5D weight set. The change in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) varied with a gain of 0.042-0.118 using the UK weights and 0.020-0.051 with the Swedish weights. The average annual treatment cost was SEK14454 for the 10μg/h patch and SEK17 017 for the 15 μg/h patch, while cost for the no-treatment alternative was SEK 9 960. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) with the UK weights were SEK 40000-SEK 170000 and SEK 90000-SEK 350000 when applying the Swedish weights. The corresponding ICER-span in the sensitivity analysis was SEK 15 000-SEK 400 000 when applying the UK weights and SEK 30 000-SEK 840 000 with the Swedish weights (SEK 100 is about €11).ConclusionsThe results imply that the 7-day buprenorphine patch may be a cost-effective treatment of moderate chronic pain in patients over 50 years of age. The UK and the Swedish EQ-5D weights generated vastly different HRQoL estimates but buprenorphine remains cost-effective regardless choice of weight set.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in the UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Bessey ◽  
James Chilcott ◽  
Joanna Leaviss ◽  
Carmen de la Cruz ◽  
Ruth Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Combined Immunodeficiency ◽  
Tree Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) can be detected through newborn bloodspot screening. In the UK, the National Screening Committee (NSC) requires screening programmes to be cost-effective at standard UK thresholds. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SCID screening for the NSC, a decision-tree model with lifetable estimates of outcomes was built. Model structure and parameterisation were informed by systematic review and expert clinical judgment. A public service perspective was used and lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.5%. Probabilistic, one-way sensitivity analyses and an exploratory disbenefit analysis for the identification of non-SCID patients were conducted. Screening for SCID was estimated to result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,222 with a reduction in SCID mortality from 8.1 (5–12) to 1.7 (0.6–4.0) cases per year of screening. Results were sensitive to a number of parameters, including the cost of the screening test, the incidence of SCID and the disbenefit to the healthy at birth and false-positive cases. Screening for SCID is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY, key uncertainties relate to the impact on false positives and the impact on the identification of children with non-SCID T Cell lymphopenia.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Diabetic Eye Disease

1987 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wallace S. Foulds ◽  
A. McCuish ◽  
T. Barrie ◽  
F. Green ◽  
I. M. Ghafour
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Diabetic Eye Disease ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase for first-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UK-based cost-utility analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingdi Hu ◽  
Kingsley P. Wildman ◽  
Subham Basu ◽  
Peggy L. Lin ◽  
Clare Rowntree ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Search Trial ◽  
Erwinia Asparaginase ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background L-asparaginase is a key component of treatment for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in the UK. Commonly used forms of asparaginase are native E. coli-derived asparaginase (native asparaginase) and pegaspargase in first-line combination therapy, and native Erwinia chrysanthemi-derived asparaginase (Erwinia asparaginase) as second-line treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in first-line combination therapy for patients with newly diagnosed ALL. A combined decision tree and health-state transition Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to assess the relative costs and health outcomes of pegaspargase versus native asparaginase in the UK setting. Results In base case analyses, first-line pegaspargase (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in cases of hypersensitivity) dominated first-line native asparaginase followed by Erwinia asparaginase; i.e. resulted in lower costs and more quality-adjusted life year gain. The favourable hypersensitivity rates and administration profile of pegaspargase led to lifetime cost savings of £4741 versus native asparaginase. Pegaspargase remained cost-effective versus all treatment strategies in all scenario analyses, including use of the 2500 IU/m2 dose, recommended for patients ≤21 years of age. Conclusions Pegaspargase, as part of multi-drug chemotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of newly diagnosed ALL. Based on this study, The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee concluded that it could recommend pegaspargase as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources in England & Wales for treating ALL in children, young people and adults with untreated, newly diagnosed disease. Trial registration UKALL 2011, EudraCT number 2010-020924-22; UKALL 2003, EudraCT number 2007-004013-34; UKALL14, EudraCT number 2009-012717-22.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of an insertable cardiac monitor in a high-risk population in the UK

Open Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia I Rinciog ◽  
Laura M Sawyer ◽  
Alexander Diamantopoulos ◽  
Mitchell S V Elkind ◽  
Matthew Reynolds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) compared with standard of care (SoC) for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 >2), using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsUsing patient characteristics and clinical data from the REVEAL AF trial, a Markov model assessed the cost-effectiveness of detecting AF with an ICM compared with SoC. Costs and benefits were extrapolated across modelled patient lifetime. Ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, intracranial and extracranial haemorrhages and minor bleeds were modelled. Diagnostic and device costs were included, plus costs of treating stroke and bleeding events and costs of oral anticoagulants (OACs). Costs and health outcomes, measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were discounted at 3.5% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken.ResultsThe total per-patient cost for ICM was £13 360 versus £11 936 for SoC (namely, annual 24 hours Holter monitoring). ICMs generated a total of 6.50 QALYs versus 6.30 for SoC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £7140/QALY gained, below the £20 000/QALY acceptability threshold. ICMs were cost-effective in 77.4% of PSA simulations. The number of ICMs needed to prevent one stroke was 21 and to cause a major bleed was 37. ICERs were sensitive to assumed proportions of patients initiating or discontinuing OAC after AF diagnosis, type of OAC used and how intense the traditional monitoring was assumed to be under SoC.ConclusionsThe use of ICMs to identify AF in a high-risk population is cost-effective for the UK NHS.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of tranexamic acid for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, based on the results of the CRASH-3 randomised trial: a decision modelling approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. e002716
Author(s):  
Jack Williams ◽  
Ian Roberts ◽  
Haleema Shakur-Still ◽  
Fiona E Lecky ◽  
Rizwana Chaudhri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionAn estimated 69 million traumatic brain injuries (TBI) occur each year worldwide, with most in low-income and middle-income countries. The CRASH-3 randomised trial found that intravenous administration of tranexamic acid within 3 hours of injury reduces head injury deaths in patients sustaining a mild or moderate TBI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid treatment for TBI.MethodsA Markov decision model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with and without tranexamic acid, in addition to current practice. We modelled the decision in the UK and Pakistan from a health service perspective, over a lifetime time horizon. We used data from the CRASH-3 trial for the risk of death during the trial period (28 days) and patient quality of life, and data from the literature to estimate costs and long-term outcomes post-TBI. We present outcomes as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 2018 costs in pounds for the UK, and US dollars for Pakistan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per QALY gained were estimated, and compared with country specific cost-effective thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.ResultsTranexamic acid was highly cost-effective for patients with mild TBI and intracranial bleeding or patients with moderate TBI, at £4288 per QALY in the UK, and US$24 per QALY in Pakistan. Tranexamic acid was 99% and 98% cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness thresholds for the UK and Pakistan, respectively, and remained cost-effective across all deterministic sensitivity analyses. Tranexamic acid was even more cost-effective with earlier treatment administration. The cost-effectiveness for those with severe TBI was uncertain.ConclusionEarly administration of tranexamic acid is highly cost-effective for patients with mild or moderate TBI in the UK and Pakistan, relative to the cost-effectiveness thresholds used. The estimated ICERs suggest treatment is likely to be cost-effective across all income settings globally.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Heart ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J V McMurray ◽  
David Trueman ◽  
Elizabeth Hancock ◽  
Martin R Cowie ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveChronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) represents a major public health issue and is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (formerly LCZ696) compared with an ACE inhibitor (ACEI) (enalapril) in the treatment of HF-REF from the perspective of healthcare providers in the UK, Denmark and Colombia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed based on data from a multinational, Phase III randomised controlled trial. A decision-analytic model was developed based on a series of regression models, which extrapolated health-related quality of life, hospitalisation rates and survival over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the UK, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for sacubitril/valsartan (using cardiovascular mortality) was £17 100 (€20 400) versus enalapril. In Denmark, the ICER for sacubitril/valsartan was Kr 174 000 (€22 600). In Colombia, the ICER was COP$39.5 million (€11 200) per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to the extrapolation of mortality, duration of treatment effect and time horizon, but were robust to other structural changes, with most scenarios associated with ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold for all three country settings. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that sacubitril/valsartan was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds was 68%–94% in the UK, 84% in Denmark and 95% in Colombia.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that, in all three countries, sacubitril/valsartan is likely to be cost-effective compared with an ACEI (the current standard of care) in patients with HF-REF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

Cephalalgia ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1473-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
JS Brown ◽  
G Papadopoulos ◽  
PJ Neumann ◽  
M Price ◽  
M Friedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Utility ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Migraine Frequency ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment in the UK. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency, treatment discontinuation and response, preventive and acute medical cost per attack [2005 GBP (£)] and gain in health utility. Outcomes included monthly migraines averted, acute and preventive treatment costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Topiramate was associated with 1.8 fewer monthly migraines and a QALY gain of 0.0384. The incremental cost of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment was about £10 per migraine averted and £5700 per QALY. Results are sensitive to baseline monthly migraine frequency, triptan use rate and the gain in utility. Incorporating savings from reduced work loss (about £36 per month) suggests that topiramate would be cost saving compared with no preventive treatment. This analysis suggests that topiramate is a cost-effective treatment for migraine prevention compared with no preventive treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document