A systematic review and economic evaluation of newgeneration computed tomography scanners for imaging in coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease: Somatom definition flash, Aquilion ONE, Brilliance ICT and Discovery CT750 HD

Background: Computed tomography (CT) is important in diagnosing and managing many conditions, including coronary artery disease (CAD) and congenital heart disease. Current CT scanners can very accurately diagnose CAD requiring revascularisation in most patients. However, imaging technologies have developed rapidly and new-generation computed tomography (NGCCT) scanners may benefit patients who are difficult to image (e.g. obese patients, patients with high or irregular heart beats and patients who have high levels of coronary calcium or a previous stent or bypass graft). Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for diagnosing clinically significant CAD in patients who are difficult to image using 64-slice computed tomography and treatment planning in complex congenital heart disease. Data sources: Bibliographic databases were searched from 2000 to February/March 2011, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database and Science Citation Index (SCI). Trial registers and conference proceedings were searched. Review methods: Systematic review methods followed published guidance. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Results were stratified by patient group. Summary sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate summary receiver operating characteristic, or random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the chisquared statistic and I2-statistic. Cost-effectiveness of NGCCT was modelled separately for suspected and known CAD, evaluating invasive coronary angiography (ICA) only, ICA after positive NGCCT (NGCCT-ICA), and NGCCT only. The cost-effectiveness of NGCCT, compared with 64-slice CT, in reducing imaging-associated radiation in congenital heart disease was assessed. Results: Twenty-four studies reported accuracy of NGCCT for diagnosing CAD in difficult-to-image patients. No clinical effectiveness studies of NGCCT in congenital heart disease were identified. The pooled per-patient estimates of sensitivity were 97.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.0% to 99.9%], 97.7% (95% CI 93.2% to 99.3%) and 96.0% (95% CI 88.8% to 99.2%) for patients with arrhythmias, high heart rates and previous stent, respectively. The corresponding estimates of specificity were 81.7% (95% CI 71.6% to 89.4%), 86.3% (95% CI 80.2% to 90.7%) and 81.6% (95% CI 74.7% to 87.3%), respectively. In patients with high coronary calcium scores, previous bypass grafts or obesity, only per-segment or per-artery data were available. Sensitivity estimates remained high (> 90% in all but one study). In patients with suspected CAD, the NGCCTonly strategy appeared most cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NGCCT-ICA compared with NGCCT only was £71,000. In patients with known CAD, the most cost-effective strategy was NGCCT-ICA (highest cost saving, dominates ICA only). The ICER of NGCCT only compared with NGCCT-ICA was £726,230. For radiation exposure only, the ICER for NGCCT compared with 64-slice C

Optimal strategies for monitoring lipid levels in patients at risk or with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with statistical and cost-effectiveness modelling

Background: Various lipid measurements in monitoring/screening programmes can be used, alone or in cardiovascular risk scores, to guide treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Because some changes in lipids are due to variability rather than true change, the value of lipid-monitoring strategies needs evaluation. Objective: To determine clinical value and cost-effectiveness of different monitoring intervals and different lipid measures for primary and secondary prevention of CVD. Data sources: We searched databases and clinical trials registers from 2007 [including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Clinical Trials Register, the Current Controlled Trials (CCT) register, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)] to update and extend previous systematic reviews. Patient-level data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and St Luke’s Hospital, Japan, were used in statistical modelling. Utilities and health-care costs were drawn from the literature. Methods: In two meta-analyses, we used prospective studies to examine associations of lipids with CVD and mortality, and randomised controlled trials to estimate lipid-lowering effects of atorvastatin doses. Patient-level data were used to estimate progression and variability of lipid measurements over time, and hence to model lipid-monitoring strategies. Results are expressed as rates of true-/false-positive and true-/false-negative tests for high lipid or high CVD risk. We estimated incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: A total of 115 publications reported strength of association between different lipid measures and CVD events in 138 data sets. The summary adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per standard deviation of total cholesterol (TC) to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio was 1.25 [95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.35] for CVD in a primary prevention population but heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 98%); similar results were observed for non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and other ratio measures. Associations were smaller for other single lipid measures. Across 10 trials, low-dose atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg) effects ranged from a TC reduction of 0.92 mmol/l to 2.07 mmol/l, and low-density lipoprotein reduction of between 0.88 mmol/l and 1.86 mmol/l. Effects of 40 mg and 80 mg were reported by one trial each. For primary prevention, over a 3-year period, we estimate annual monitoring would unnecessarily treat 9 per 1000 more men (28 vs. 19 per 1000) and 5 per 1000 more women (17 vs. 12 per 1000) than monitoring every 3 years. However, annual monitoring would also undertreat 9 per 1000 fewer men (7 vs. 16 per 1000) and 4 per 1000 fewer women (7 vs. 11 per 1000) than monitoring at 3-year intervals. For secondary prevention, over a 3-year period, annual monitoring would increase unnecessary treatment changes by 66 per 1000 men and 31 per 1000 women, and decrease undertreatment by 29 per 1000 men and 28 per 1000 men, compared with monitoring every 3 years. In cost-effectiveness, strategies with increased screening/monitoring dominate. Exploratory analyses found that any unknown harms of statins would need utility decrements as large as 0.08 (men) to 0.11 (women) per statin user to reverse this finding in primary prevention. Limitation: Heterogeneity in meta-analyses. Conclusions: While acknowledging known and potential unknown harms of statins, we find that more-frequent monitoring strategies are cost-effective compared with others. Regular lipid monitoring in those with and without CVD is likely to be beneficial to patients and to the health service. Future research should include trials of the benefits and harms of atorvastatin 40 and 80 mg, large-scale surveillance of statin safety, and investigation of the effect of monitoring on medication adherence