Cost-effectiveness of CTA, MRA and DSA in patients with non-traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage

OBJECTIVES: Intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) are imaging modalities used for diagnostic work-up of non-traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage. The aim of our study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of MRA, DSA and CTA in the first year after the bleed. METHODS: A decision model was used to calculate costs and benefits (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) that accrued to cohorts of 1,000 patients. Costs and characteristics of diagnostic tests, therapy, patients’ quality of life and associated costs were respected. The diagnostic strategy with highest QALYs and lowest costs was considered most cost-effective. RESULTS: DSA was the most effective diagnostic option, yielding on average 0.6039 QALYs (95 % CI, 0.5761–0.6327) per patient, followed by CTA 0.5983 QALYs (95 % CI, 0.5704–0.6278) and MRA 0.5947 QALYs (95 % CI, 0.5674–0.6237). Cost was lowest for DSA (39,808 €; 95 % CI, 37,182–42,663), followed by CTA (40,748 €; 95 % CI, 37,937–43,831) and MRA (41,814 €; 95 % CI, 38,730–45,146). A strategy of CTA followed by DSA if CTA was negative or coiling deemed not feasible, was as effective as DSA alone at average costs of 39,767€ (95 % CI, 36,903–42,402). CONCLUSION: A combined strategy of CTA and DSA was found to be the most cost-effective diagnostic approach. MAIN MESSAGES: • We defined a standard model for cost-effectiveness analysis in diagnostic imaging. • Comparing total 1-year health costs and benefits, CTA is superior to MRA. • A strategy of combining CTA and DSA was found to be the most cost-effective diagnostic approach

Acknowledging Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation A Systematic Literature Review

Background and Objective Patient heterogeneity is the part of variability that can be explained by certain patient characteristics (e.g. age, disease stage). Population reimbursement decisions that acknowledge patient heterogeneity could potentially save money and increase population health. To date, however, economic evaluations pay only limited attention to patient heterogeneity. The objective of the present paper is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluation of healthcare programmes. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify methodological papers on the topic of patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation. Data were obtained using a keyword search of the PubMed database and manual searches. Handbooks were also included. Relevant data were extracted regarding potential sources of patient heterogeneity, in which of the input parameters of an economic evaluation these occur, methods to acknowledge patient heterogeneity and specific concerns associated with this acknowledgement. Results A total of 20 articles and five handbooks were included. The relevant sources of patient heterogeneity (demographics, preferences and clinical characteristics) and the input parameters where they occurred (baseline risk, treatment effect, health state utility and resource utilization) were combined in a framework. Methods were derived for the design, analysis and presentation phases of an economic evaluation. Concerns related mainly to the danger of false-positive results and equity issues. Conclusion By systematically reviewing current knowledge regarding patient heterogeneity within economic evaluations of healthcare programmes, we provide guidance for future economic evaluations. Guidance is provided on which sources of patient heterogeneity to consider, how to acknowledge them in economic evaluation and potential concerns. The improved acknowledgement of patient heterogeneity in future economic evaluations may well improve the efficiency of healthcare

What to choose as radical local treatment for lung metastases from cob-rectal cancer: Surgery or radiofrequency ablation?

Background: Long-term survival can be obtained with local treatment of lung metastases from colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear as to what the optimal local therapy is: surgery, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: A systematic review included 27 studies matching with the a priori selection criteria, the most important being >= 50 patients and a follow-up period of >= 24 months. No SBRT studies were eligible. The review was therefore conducted on 4 RFA and 23 surgical series. Results: Four of the surgical studies were prospective, all others were retrospective. No randomized trial was found. The reporting of data differed between the studies, which led to difficulties in the analyses. Treatment-related mortality rates for RFA and surgery were 0% and 1.4-2.4%, respectively, whereas morbidity rates were reported inconsistently but seemed the lowest for surgery. Conclusion: Due to the lack of phase III trials, no firm conclusions can be drawn, although most evidence supports surgery as the most effective treatment option. High-quality trials comparing currently used treatment modalities such as SBRT, RFA and surgery are needed to inform treatment decisions

The impact of late treatment-toxicity on generic health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after radiotherapy

SummaryTo examine the impact of late treatment-related xerostomia and dysphagia on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients after radiotherapy. A multi-center cross-sectional survey was performed. Patients with a follow-up of at least 6months after curative radiotherapy, without evidence of recurrent disease were eligible for inclusion. The Euroqol-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D) was filled out and toxicity was scored and converted to the RTOG scale. The EQ-5D measures generic HRQOL in terms of utility and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Missing data on the EQ-5D were imputed using multiple imputation. HRQOL was compared between subgroups of patients with and without toxicity. Subsequently, the impact of xerostomia and dysphagia on HRQOL was analyzed using multivariate regression analyses. Both analyses were performed separately for utility scores and VAS scores. The study population was composed of 396 HNC patients. The average utility and VAS scores were 0.85 (scale 0–1) and 75 (scale 0–100). Subgroups of patients with xerostomia and/or dysphagia showed statistically significantly lower utility and VAS scores (P=0.000–0.022). The multivariate regression model showed that xerostomia and dysphagia were negative predictors of both utility and VAS scores. Other factors which influenced HRQOL in at least one of the two regression models were: sex, tumor location and the addition of surgery to radiotherapy. Xerostomia and dysphagia diminish generic HRQOL. Moreover dysphagia affects patients’ HRQOL stronger than xerostomia

Potential barriers and facilitators for implementation of an integrated care pathway for hearing-impaired persons: an exploratory survey among patients and professionals

BACKGROUND: Because of the increasing costs and anticipated shortage of Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) specialists in the care for hearing-impaired persons, an integrated care pathway that includes direct hearing aid provision was developed. While this direct pathway is still under investigation, in a survey we examined expectations and potential barriers and facilitators towards this direct pathway, of patients and professionals involved in the pathway. METHODS: Two study populations were assessed: members of the health professions involved in the care pathway for hearing-impaired persons (general practitioners (GPs), hearing aid dispensers, ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists) and persons with hearing complaints. We developed a comprehensive semi-structured questionnaire for the professionals, regarding expectations, barriers, facilitators and conditions for implementation. We developed two questionnaires for persons with hearing complaints, both regarding evaluations and preferences, and administered them after they had experienced two key elements of the direct pathway: the triage and the hearing aid fitting. RESULTS: On average GPs and hearing aid dispensers had positive expectations towards the direct pathway, while ENT-specialists and clinical audiologists had negative expectations. Professionals stated both barriers and facilitators towards the direct pathway. Most professionals either supported implementation of the direct pathway, provided that a number of conditions were satisfied, or did not support implementation, unless roughly the same conditions were satisfied. Professionals generally agreed on which conditions need to be satisfied. Persons with hearing complaints evaluated the present referral pathway and the new direct pathway equally. Many, especially older, participants stated however that they would still visit the GP and ENT-specialist, even when this would not be necessary for reimbursement of the hearing aid, and found it important that the ENT-specialist or Audiological Centre evaluated their hearing aid. CONCLUSION: This study identified professional concerns about the direct pathway for hearing-impaired persons. Gaps exist in expectations amongst professions. Also gaps exist between users of the pathway, especially between age groups and regions. Professionals are united in the conditions that need to be fulfilled for a successful implementation of the direct pathway. Implementation on a regional level is recommended to best satisfy these conditions

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

OBJECTIVES: To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting METHODS: Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. RESULTS: All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from 647,209 euros/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to 15,811 euros/QALY for HUI3. CONCLUSION: Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyse

How can robot-assisted surgery provide value for money?

Objectives To develop an interactive tool that estimates what potential benefits are needed for the robot to provide value for money when compared with endoscopic or open surgical interventions.Design A generic online interactive tool was developed to analyze the (health) effects needed to compensate for the additional costs of using a surgical robotic system from a healthcare perspective. The application of the tool is illustrated with a hypothetical new surgical robotic platform. A synthesis of evidence from different sources was used combined with interviews with surgeons.Setting Flexible tool that can be adapted to flexible settings.Participants Any hospital patient group for which robotic, endoscopic or open surgical procedures may be considered as appropriate treatment alternatives (eg, urology, gynecology, and so on).Intervention Robotically assisted surgical interventions.Comparator Endoscopic or open surgical interventions.Main outcome measures Thresholds of how much (health) effect is needed for robot-assisted surgery to provide value for money and to become cost-effective.Results The utilization rate of the surgical robotic system and a reduction in complications appeared to be important aspects in determining the value for money. To become cost-effective, it was deemed important for new surgical robotic systems to have added clinical benefit and become less costly than the current system.Conclusions This paper and its assisting interactive tool can be used by clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to gain insight in the benefit needed to provide value for money when using a (new) surgical robotic system or, when the effects are known or can be estimated, to assess the value for money for a specific indication. For robotic surgery to provide most value for money, we recommend assessing for each indication whether the necessary effects seem achievable