Base-case scenario results: Data in brackets are 95% CIs obtained from probabilities analyses.

<p>*No screening is the reference strategy.</p><p>Base-case scenario results: Data in brackets are 95% CIs obtained from probabilities analyses.</p

Cost Effectiveness Acceptability Curve (CEAC).

<p>This curve represents the probability of the long QT strategy of being cost effective under various ranges of willingness-to-pay threshold values per QALY. The strategy “ECG” in the base case scenario is cost effective in 86% and 96% of the simulated cohorts at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $25 000 and$50 000, respectively.</p

The two-way sensitivity analysis displays the impact on ICER of jointly varying the risk reduction of TdP after LQT detection and the TdP mortality.

<p>The highlighted target square represents the resulting ICER ($8644/QALY) from the base case scenario. The shaded colors represent the magnitude of the ICER from grey representing the lowest ICERs (<$15000/QALY) to darkest shades representing highest ICERs (>$100000/QALY).</p

Characteristics of patients in the ESOP Study [3].

<p>^a Only the most frequent antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs are detailed.</p><p>Characteristics of patients in the ESOP Study [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127213#pone.0127213.ref003" target="_blank">3</a>].</p

The decision tree represents both strategies: “ECG screening” at hospital admission <i>versus</i> “No ECG screening”.

<p>Probabilities of patients belonging to a QT category are identical in both strategies, as the risk of SCD after a TdP event. The probability of developing TdP is based on the severity of QT prolongation and is reduced by LQT detection in the ECG strategy. For patients remaining alive, the model assumes a life expectancy of 25 years.</p

Input parameters—Base case values and ranges.

<p>All costs are in US$.</p><p>^╪ Range of values for which the parameters were varied in the one-way sensibility analysis.</p><p>^†This column indicates whether or not parameter values were drawn at random from a distribution probability (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127213#pone.0127213.s003" target="_blank">S1 Table</a>).</p><p>^§Data for utilities represent the quality-of-life estimates for aggregated health states in psychiatry and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health).</p><p>Input parameters—Base case values and ranges.</p

The tornado diagram represents the impact on the ICER when varying one single parameter (one-way sensitivity analysis).

<p>The vertical line represents the ICER in the base-case analysis (8644 US$/QALY) and the horizontal bars represent the variation of the ICER given variations of key parameters driving the model outcomes. The ranges of variations are represented by means of lower (light grey bars) and higher (dark grey bars) ICER values, with the base-case scenario parameter values in the midline indicated in brackets.</p

RMSE at medium time scales over HP and QT series.

<p>RMSE mean (plus standard deviation) assessed at medium time scales (i.e. τ = 2–4) over HP series, RMSE_{HP,τ = 2–4} (a,c,e), and QT series, RMSE_{QT,τ = 2–4} (b,d,f), is shown as a function of the experimental protocol. RMSE_{HP,τ = 2–4} and RMSE_{QT,τ = 2–4} are depicted as a function of the group of subjects in the NMC-MC protocol in (a) and (b) respectively, as a function of the period of analysis in the DAY-NIGHT protocol in (c) and (d) respectively, and as a function of the therapy in the BBoff-BBon protocol in (e) and (f) respectively. The gray, dark and white bars are relevant to NMC, ASYMP and SYMP individuals, respectively. The symbol * indicates a significant difference between experimental conditions (i.e. DAY versus NIGHT, BBoff versus BBon) within the same group with p<0.05. The symbol ^# indicates a significant difference between groups within the same experimental conditions (i.e. DAY, NIGHT, BBoff or BBon) with p<0.05.</p

Time domain indexes derived from HP and QT series in the NMC-MC protocol.

<p>μ_HP  =  HP mean; σ²_HP  =  HP variance; μ_QT  =  QT mean; σ²_QT  =  QT variance; NMC  =  non mutation carrier group; ASYMP  =  asymptomatic group; SYMP  =  symptomatic group. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. The symbol ^§ indicates p<0.05 versus NMC individuals. The symbol ° indicates p<0.05 versus ASYMP subjects.</p

RMSE at short time scale over HP and QT series.

<p>RMSE mean (plus standard deviation) assessed at short time scale (i.e. τ = 1) over HP series, RMSE_{HP,τ = 1} (a,c,e), and QT series, RMSE_{QT,τ = 1} (b,d,f), is shown as a function of the experimental protocol. RMSE_{HP,τ = 1} and RMSE_{QT,τ = 1} are depicted as a function of the group of subjects in the NMC-MC protocol in (a) and (b) respectively, as a function of the period of analysis in the DAY-NIGHT protocol in (c) and (d) respectively, and as a function of the therapy in the BBoff-BBon protocol in (e) and (f) respectively. The gray, dark and white bars are relevant to NMC, ASYMP and SYMP individuals, respectively. The symbols * indicates a significant difference between experimental conditions (i.e. DAY versus NIGHT, BBoff versus BBon) within the same group with p<0.05.</p