Managing the Increasing Burden of Atrial Fibrillation through Integrated Care in Primary Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Integrated care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care reduced mortality compared to usual care. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: Dutch primary care practices were randomised to provide integrated care for AF patients or usual care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective with a 2-year time horizon to estimate incremental costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis was performed, imputing missing questionnaires for a large group of usual care patients. RESULTS: 522 patients from 15 intervention practices were compared to 425 patients from 11 usual care practices. No effect on QALYs was seen, while mean costs indicated a cost reduction between €865 (95% percentile interval (PI) -€5730 to €3641) and €1343 (95% PI -€6534 to €3109) per patient per 2 years. The cost-effectiveness probability ranged between 36% and 54%. In the sensitivity analysis, this increased to 95%-99%. DISCUSSION: Results should be interpreted with caution due to missing information for a large proportion of usual care patients. CONCLUSION: The higher costs from extra primary care consultations were likely outweighed by cost reductions for other resources, yet this study doesn't give sufficient clarity on the cost-effectiveness of integrated AF care

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026)

Impact of ^18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer:A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study

Background: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. Materials and Methods:In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3–4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). Results: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870–1253 in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions:For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. Trial registration: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.</p

¹⁸F-Fludeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Laparoscopy for Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer:A Multicenter Prospective Dutch Cohort Study (PLASTIC)

Importance: The optimal staging for gastric cancer remains a matter of debate. Objective: To evaluate the value of 18F-fludeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in addition to initial staging by means of gastroscopy and CT in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective, observational cohort study included 394 patients with locally advanced, clinically curable gastric adenocarcinoma (≥cT3 and/or N+, M0 category based on CT) between August 1, 2017, and February 1, 2020. Exposures: All patients underwent an FDG-PET/CT and/or SL in addition to initial staging. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of patients in whom the intent of treatment changed based on the results of these 2 investigations. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic performance, number of incidental findings on FDG-PET/CT, morbidity and mortality after SL, and diagnostic delay. Results: Of the 394 patients included, 256 (65%) were men and mean (SD) age was 67.6 (10.7) years. A total of 382 patients underwent FDG-PET/CT and 357 underwent SL. Treatment intent changed from curative to palliative in 65 patients (16%) based on the additional FDG-PET/CT and SL findings. FDG-PET/CT detected distant metastases in 12 patients (3%), and SL detected peritoneal or locally nonresectable disease in 73 patients (19%), with an overlap of 7 patients (2%). FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 33% (95% CI, 17%-53%) and specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%) in detecting distant metastases. Secondary findings on FDG/PET were found in 83 of 382 patients (22%), which led to additional examinations in 65 of 394 patients (16%). Staging laparoscopy resulted in a complication requiring reintervention in 3 patients (0.8%) without postoperative mortality. The mean (SD) diagnostic delay was 19 (14) days. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest an apparently limited additional value of FDG-PET/CT; however, SL added considerably to the staging process of locally advanced gastric cancer by detection of peritoneal and nonresectable disease. Therefore, it may be useful to include SL in guidelines for staging advanced gastric cancer, but not FDG-PET/CT

Impact of ^18FFDG-PET/CT and Laparoscopy in Staging of Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer:A Cost Analysis in the Prospective Multicenter PLASTIC-Study

Background: Unnecessary D2-gastrectomy and associated costs can be prevented after detecting non-curable gastric cancer, but impact of staging on treatment costs is unclear. This study determined the cost impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FFDG-PET/CT) and staging laparoscopy (SL) in gastric cancer staging. Materials and Methods:In this cost analysis, four staging strategies were modeled in a decision tree: (1) 18FFDG-PET/CT first, then SL, (2) SL only, (3) 18FFDG-PET/CT only, and (4) neither SL nor 18FFDG-PET/CT. Costs were assessed on the basis of the prospective PLASTIC-study, which evaluated adding 18FFDG-PET/CT and SL to staging advanced gastric cancer (cT3–4 and/or cN+) in 18 Dutch hospitals. The Dutch Healthcare Authority provided 18FFDG-PET/CT unit costs. SL unit costs were calculated bottom-up. Gastrectomy-associated costs were collected with hospital claim data until 30 days postoperatively. Uncertainty was assessed in a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (1000 iterations). Results: 18FFDG-PET/CT costs were €1104 including biopsy/cytology. Bottom-up calculations totaled €1537 per SL. D2-gastrectomy costs were €19,308. Total costs per patient were €18,137 for strategy 1, €17,079 for strategy 2, and €19,805 for strategy 3. If all patients undergo gastrectomy, total costs were €18,959 per patient (strategy 4). Performing SL only reduced costs by €1880 per patient. Adding 18FFDG-PET/CT to SL increased costs by €1058 per patient; IQR €870–1253 in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions:For advanced gastric cancer, performing SL resulted in substantial cost savings by reducing unnecessary gastrectomies. In contrast, routine 18FFDG-PET/CT increased costs without substantially reducing unnecessary gastrectomies, and is not recommended due to limited impact with major costs. Trial registration: NCT03208621. This trial was registered prospectively on 30-06-2017.</p

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses of a colorectal cancer screening programme in a high adenoma prevalence scenario using MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model

This economic evaluation showed a screening intervention with a major health gain that also produced net savings when a long follow-up was used to capture the late economic benefit. The number of colonoscopies required was high but remain within the capacity of the Basque Health Service. So far in Europe, no other population Colorectal Cancer screening programme has been evaluated by budget impact analysis

Colorectal Cancer: Cost-effectiveness of Colonoscopy versus CT Colonography Screening with Participation Rates and Costs

©RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this articl

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program

Background When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs. Methods We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality. Results The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population. Conclusion Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program