Individualized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

John Ioannidis and Alan Garber discuss how to use incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and related metrics so they can be useful for decision-making at the individual level, whether used by clinicians or individual patients

Osteoarthritis and functional disability: results of a cross sectional study among primary care patients in Germany

Contains fulltext : 52359.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine factors associated with functional disability in patients with OA. METHODS: 1250 questionnaires were distributed to OA outpatients from 75 general practices; 1021 (81.6%) were returned. Questionnaires included sociodemographic data, the short form of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS2-SF), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess concomitant depression. A hierarchical stepwise multiple regression analysis with the AIMS2-SF dimension "lower body" as dependent was performed. RESULTS: Main factors associated with functional disability were depression symptoms, as reflected in a high score of the PHQ-9 (beta = 0.446; p < 0.0009), pain as reflected in the AIMS2-SF symptom scale (beta = 0.412; p = 0.001), and few social contacts (beta = 0.201; p < 0.042). A high body mass index was associated with lower functional ability (beta = 0.332; p = 0.005) whereas a higher educational level (beta = -0.279; p = 0.029) predicted less impairment. Increased age was a weak predictor (beta = 0.178; p = 0.001) of disability. With a p of 0.062 the radiological severity according to the grading of Kellgren and Lawrence slightly surpassed the required significance level for remaining in the final regression model. CONCLUSION: The results emphasize that psychological as well as physical factors need to be addressed similarly to improve functional ability of patients suffering from OA. More research with multifaceted and tailored interventions is needed to determine how these factors can be targeted appropriately

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Background Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice? Methods Stakeholders' opinions and ideas will be explored through an 18-month qualitative study. Data will be collected from in-depth individual interviews. A purposive sample of 20 to 25 key-informants will be selected among three groups of stakeholders: health professionals using guidelines (e.g., physicians, nurses); experts at the macro- and meso-level, including guideline and decision aids developers, policy makers, and researchers; and patient representatives. Ideas and recommendations expressed by stakeholders will be prioritized by nominal group technique in expert meetings. Discussion One-for-all guidelines do not account for differences in patients' characteristics and for their preferences for medical interventions and health outcomes, suggesting a need for flexible guidelines that facilitate patient involvement in clinical decision making. The question is how this can be achieved. This study is not about patient participation in guideline development, a closely related and important issue that does not however substitute for, or guarantee individual patient involvement in clinical decisions. The study results will provide the needed background for recommendations about potential effective and feasible strategies to ensure greater responsiveness of clinical practice guidelines to individual patient's preferences in clinical decision-making

Racial Differences in Patients’ Perceptions of Debilitated Health States

OBJECTIVE: To determine health utility scores for specific debilitated health states and to identify whether race or other demographic differences predict significant variation in these utility scores. DESIGN: Utility analysis. SETTING: A community hospital general internal medicine clinic, a private internal medicine practice, and a private pulmonary medicine practice. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four consecutive patients aged 50 to 75 years awaiting appointments. In order to participate, patients at the pulmonary clinic had to meet prespecified criteria of breathing impairment. MEASUREMENTS: Individuals’ strength of preference concerning specific states of limited physical function as measured by the standard gamble technique. MAIN RESULTS: Mean utility scores used to quantitate limitations in physical function were extremely low. Using a scale for which 0 represented death and 1.0 represented normal health, limitation in activities of daily living was rated 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13, 0.25), tolerance of only bed-to-chair ambulation 0.17 (95% CI 0.11, 0.23), and permanent nursing home placement 0.16 (95% CI 0.10, 0.22). Bivariate analysis identified female gender and African-American race as predictors of higher utility scores (p ≤ .05). In multiple regression analysis, only race remained statistically significant (p ≤ .02 for all three outcome variables). CONCLUSION: Comparisons of African-American values with those of whites concerning defined states of debility demonstrate greater than threefold increases in utility scores. This finding suggests that racial differences need to be taken into account when studying the effects of medical interventions on quality of life

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Coronary Artery Disease in Asymptomatic Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Additional Atherogenic Risk Factors

OBJECTIVE: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic diabetic patients with two additional atherogenic risk factors has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Diabetes Association, but its cost-effectiveness is yet to be determined. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and determine acceptable strategies. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was performed from a societal perspective to measure the clinical benefit and economic consequences of CAD screening in asymptomatic men with diabetes and two additional atherogenic risk factors. We evaluated cohorts of patients stratified by different age groups, and 10 possible combination pairs of atherogenic risks. Incremental cost-effectiveness of no screening, exercise electrocardiography, exercise echocardiography, or exercise single-photon emission-tomography (SPECT) was calculated. Input data were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with no screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exercise electrocardiography was $41,600/QALY in 60-year-old asymptomatic diabetic men with hypertension and smoking, but was weakly dominated by exercise echocardiography. Exercise echocardiography was most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of$40,800/QALY. Exercise SPECT was dominated by other strategies. Sensitivity analyses found that results varied depending on age, combination of additional atherogenic risk factors, and diagnostic test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD screening in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and two or more additional atherogenic risk factors is shown to be acceptable from a societal perspective. Exercise echocardiography was the most cost-effective strategy, followed by exercise electrocardiography

Value of primordial and primary prevention for cardiovascular disease: A policy statement from the American Heart Association

The process of atherosclerosis may begin in youth and continue for decades, leading to both nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death. With primordial and primary prevention, cardiovascular disease is largely preventable. Clinical trial evidence has shown convincingly that pharmacological treatment of risk factors can prevent events. The data are less definitive but also highly suggestive that appropriate public policy and lifestyle interventions aimed at eliminating tobacco use, limiting salt consumption, encouraging physical exercise, and improving diet can prevent events. There has been concern about whether efforts aimed at primordial and primary prevention provide value (ie, whether such interventions are worth what we pay for them). Although questions about the value of therapeutics for acute disease may be addressed by cost-effectiveness analysis, the long time frames involved in evaluating preventive interventions make cost-effectiveness analysis difficult and necessarily flawed. Nonetheless, cost-effectiveness analyses reviewed in this policy statement largely suggest that public policy, community efforts, and pharmacological intervention are all likely to be cost-effective and often cost saving compared with common benchmarks. The high direct medical care and indirect costs of cardiovascular disease-approaching $450 billion a year in 2010 and projected to rise to over$1 trillion a year by 2030-make this a critical medical and societal issue. Prevention of cardiovascular disease will also provide great value in developing a healthier, more productive society. © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc