Can artificial intelligence separate the wheat from the chaff in systematic reviews of health economic articles?

The aim of this analysis was to investigate the performance of ASReview for screening titles and abstracts when performing a systematic literature review of health economic evaluations. To do this, the simulation function within ASReview was used to determine the order in which articles were presented to the reviewer. Moreover, two types of stopping rules were applied on screening with ASReview, and the accuracy and efficiency were determined using retrospective analysis. The analyis is described in detail in: Oude Wolcherink MJ, Pouwels XGLV, van Dijk SHB, Doggen CJM, Koffijberg H. Health Economic Research Can artificial intelligence separate the wheat from the chaff in systematic reviews of health economic articles? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research. Augustus 2023 doi: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2234639. The zip.file includes data used for the analysis described above and scripts to run the analysis to generate the figures shown in the article above. You are also able to adapt the scripts to perform your own analysis on your own data. Please, read the README file careful and follow the steps indicated there

Early detection of obstructive coronary artery disease in the asymptomatic high-risk population:objectives and study design of the EARLY-SYNERGY trial

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) burden for society is expected to steeply increase over the next decade. Improved feasibility and efficiency of preventive strategies is necessary to flatten the curve. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the main determinant of CAD-related mortality and morbidity, and predominantly occurs in individuals with more advanced stages of CAD causing subclinical myocardial ischemia (obstructive CAD; OCAD). Unfortunately, OCAD can remain subclinical until its destructive presentation with AMI or sudden death. Current primary preventive strategies are not designed to differentiate between non-OCAD and OCAD and the opportunity is missed to treat individuals with OCAD more aggressively. Methods: EARLY-SYNERGY is a multicenter, randomized-controlled clinical trial in individuals with coronary artery calcium (CAC) presence to study (1.) the yield of cardiac magnetic resonance stress myocardial perfusion imaging (CMR-MPI) for early OCAD diagnosis and (2) whether early OCAD diagnosis improves outcomes. Individuals with CAC score ≥300 objectified in 2 population-based trials (ROBINSCA; ImaLife) are recruited for study participation. Eligible candidates are randomized 1:1 to cardiac magnetic resonance stress myocardial perfusion imaging (CMR-MPI) or no additional functional imaging. In the CMR-MPI arm, feedback on imaging results is provided to primary care provider and participant in case of guideline-based actionable findings. Participants are followed-up for clinical events, healthcare utilization and quality of life. Conclusions: EARLY-SYNERGY is the first randomized-controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that subclinical OCAD is widely present in the general at-risk population and that early differentiation of OCAD from non-OCAD followed by guideline-recommended treatment improves outcomes

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND: Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases. METHODS: Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011-22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY-US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening. DISCUSSION: Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55-74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening. REGISTRATION OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228

Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations

Background: Chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive, associated with low radiation and highly sensitive to lung cancer. To improve the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening, simultaneous screening for other diseases could be considered. This systematic review was conducted to analyse studies that published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chest LDCT screening programs for different diseases. Methods: Scopus and PubMed were searched for English publications (1 January 2011–22 July 2022) using search terms related to screening, computed tomography and cost-effectiveness. An additional search specifically searched for the cost-effectiveness of screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Included publications should present a full health economic evaluation of population screening with chest LDCT. The extracted data included the disease screened for, model type, country context of screening, inclusion of comorbidities or incidental findings, incremental costs, incremental effects and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio amongst others. Reporting quality was assessed using the 2022 Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: The search yielded 1799 unique papers, of which 43 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n = 40), and three were on coronary calcium scoring. Microsimulation was the most commonly applied modelling type (n = 16), followed by life table analysis (n = 10) and Markov cohort models (n = 10). Studies reflected the healthcare context of the US (n = 15), Canada (n = 4), the UK (n = 3) and 13 other countries. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from US$10,000 to US$90,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for lung cancer screening compared to no screening and was US$15,900/QALY–US$45,300/QALY for coronary calcium scoring compared to no screening. Discussion: Almost all health economic evaluations of LDCT screening focused on lung cancer. Literature regarding the health economic benefits of simultaneous LDCT screening for multiple diseases is absent. Most studies suggest LDCT screening is cost-effective for current and former smokers aged 55–74 with a minimum of 30 pack-years of smoking history. Consequently, more evidence on LDCT is needed to support further cost-effectiveness analyses. Preferably evidence on simultaneous screening for multiple diseases is needed, but alternatively, on single-disease screening. Registration of systematic review: Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews registration CRD42021290228 can be accessed https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=290228

Coronary calcium scoring as first-line test to detect and exclude coronary artery disease in patients presenting to the general practitioner with stable chest pain:protocol of the cluster-randomised CONCRETE trial

Introduction: Identifying and excluding coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with atypical angina pectoris (AP) and non-specific thoracic complaints is a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). A diagnostic and prognostic tool could help GPs in determining the likelihood of CAD and guide patient management. Studies in outpatient settings have shown that the CT-based coronary calcium score (CCS) has high accuracy for diagnosis and exclusion of CAD. However, the CT CCS test has not been tested in a primary care setting. In the COroNary Calcium scoring as fiRst-linE Test to dEtect and exclude coronary artery disease in GPs patients with stable chest pain (CONCRETE) study, the impact of direct access of GPs to CT CCS will be investigated. We hypothesise that this will allow for early diagnosis of CAD and treatment, more efficient referral to the cardiologist and a reduction of healthcare-related costs. Methods and analysis: CONCRETE is a pragmatic multicentre trial with a cluster randomised design, in which direct GP access to the CT CCS test is compared with standard of care. In both arms, at least 40 GP offices, and circa 800 patients with atypical AP and non-specific thoracic complaints will be included. To determine the increase in detection and treatment rate of CAD in GP offices, the CVRM registration rate is derived from the GPs electronic registration system. Individual patients' data regarding cardiovascular risk factors, expressed chest pain complaints, quality of life, downstream testing and CAD diagnosis will be collected through questionnaires and the electronic GP dossier. Ethics and dissemination: CONCRETE has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the University Medical Center of Groningen