Insight into "Calculated Risk" : An Application to the Prioritization of Emerging Infectious Diseases for Blood Transfusion Safety

Increasing identification of transmissions of emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) by blood transfusion raised the question which of these EIDs poses the highest risk to blood safety. For a number of the EIDs that are perceived to be a threat to blood safety, evidence on actual disease or transmission characteristics is lacking, which might render measures against such EIDs disputable. On the other hand, the fact that we call them "emerging" implies almost by definition that we are uncertain about at least some of their characteristics. So what is the relative importance of various disease and transmission characteristics, and how are these influenced by the degree of uncertainty associated with their actual values? We identified the likelihood of transmission by blood transfusion, the presence of an asymptomatic phase of infection, prevalence of infection, and the disease impact as the main characteristics of the perceived risk of disease transmission by blood transfusion. A group of experts in the field of infectious diseases and blood transfusion ranked sets of (hypothetical) diseases with varying degrees of uncertainty associated with their disease characteristics, and used probabilistic inversion to obtain probability distributions for the weight of each of these risk characteristics. These distribution weights can be used to rank both existing and newly emerging infectious diseases with (partially) known characteristics. Analyses show that in case there is a lack of data concerning disease characteristics, it is the uncertainty concerning the asymptomatic phase and the disease impact that are the most important drivers of the perceived risk. On the other hand, if disease characteristics are well established, it is the prevalence of infection and the transmissibility of the disease by blood transfusion that will drive the perceived risk. The risk prioritization model derived provides an easy to obtain and rational expert assessment of the relative importance of an (emerging) infectious disease, requiring only a limited amount of information. Such a model might be used to justify a rational and proportional response to an emerging infectious disease, especially in situations where little or no specific information is available

The Predictive Value of Discrete Choice Experiments in Public Health : An Exploratory Application

The objective of this study was to assess the predictive value of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in public health by comparing stated preferences to actual behavior. 780 Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients received a questionnaire, containing a DCE with five attributes related to T2DM patients' willingness to participate in a combined lifestyle intervention. Panel mixed-multinomial-logit models were used to estimate the stated preferences based on 206 completed DCE questionnaires. Actual participation status was retrieved for 54 respondents based on patients' medical records and a second questionnaire. Predicted and actual behavior data were compared at population level and at individual level. Based on the estimated utility function, 81.8 % of all answers that individual respondents provided on the choice tasks were predicted correctly. The actual participation rate at the aggregated population level was minimally underestimated (70.1 vs. 75.9 %). Of all individual choices, 74.1 % were predicted correctly with a positive predictive value of 0.80 and a negative predictive value of 0.44. Stated preferences derived from a DCE can adequately predict actual behavior in a public health setting

Cost-Effectiveness of a Proactive Primary Care Program for Frail Older People : A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program. METHODS: Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm. RESULTS: Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%. CONCLUSION: A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money

Cost-Effectiveness of a Proactive Primary Care Program for Frail Older People : A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program. METHODS: Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm. RESULTS: Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%. CONCLUSION: A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money

Long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness of high-dose dexamethasone for cardiac surgery: a randomised trial

Prophylactic intra-operative administration of dexamethasone may improve short-term clinical outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients included in the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled DExamethasone for Cardiac Surgery (DECS) trial were followed up for 12 months after their cardiac surgical procedure. In the DECS trial, patients received a sing

Long-term outcomes and cost effectiveness of high-dose dexamethasone for cardiac surgery:A randomised trial

Prophylactic intra-operative administration of dexamethasone may improve short-term clinical outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients included in the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled DExamethasone for Cardiac Surgery (DECS) trial were followed up for 12 months after their cardiac surgical procedure. In the DECS trial, patients received a single intra-operative dose of dexamethasone 1 mg.kg(-1) (n = 2239) or placebo (n = 2255). The effects on the incidence of major postoperative events were evaluated. Also, overall costs for the 12-month postoperative period, and cost effectiveness, were compared between groups. Of 4494 randomised patients, 4457 patients (99%) were followed up until 12 months after surgery. There was no difference in the incidence of major postoperative events, the relative risk (95%CI) being 0.86 (0.72-1.03); p = 0.1. Treatment with dexamethasone reduced costs per patient by 921 pound [SIC 1084] (95%CI -1672 pound to -137; p = 0.02), mainly through reduction of postoperative respiratory failure and duration of postoperative hospital stay. The probability of dexamethasone being cost effective compared with placebo was 97% at a threshold value of 17,000 pound [SIC 20,000] per quality-adjusted life year. We conclude that intra-operative high-dose dexamethasone did not have an effect on major adverse events at 12 months after cardiac surgery, but was associated with a reduction in costs. Routine dexamethasone administration is expected to be cost effective at commonly accepted threshold levels for cost effectivenes