The value of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction : a probabilistic analysis

Background and Aim. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death in the United Kingdom, accounting for more than 120,000 deaths in 2001, among the highest rates in the world. This study reports an economic evaluation of single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (SPECT) for the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods. Strategies involving SPECT with and without stress electrocardiography (ECG) and coronary angiography (CA) were compared to diagnostic strategies not involving SPECT. The diagnosis decision was modelled with a decision tree model and long-term costs and consequences using a Markov model. Data to populate the models were obtained from a series of systematic reviews. Unlike earlier evaluations, a probabilistic analysis was included to assess the statistical imprecision of the results. The results are presented in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results. At prevalence levels of CAD of 10.5%, SPECT-based strategies are costeffective; ECG-CA is highly unlikely to be optimal. At a ceiling ratio of _20,000 per QALY, SPECT-CA has a 90% likelihood of being optimal. Beyond this threshold, this strategy becomes less likely to be cost-effective. At more than _75,000 per QALY, coronary angiography is most likely to be optimal. For higher levels of prevalence (around 50%) and more than a _10,000 per QALY threshold, coronary angiography is the optimal decision. Conclusions. SPECTbased strategies are likely to be cost-effective when risk of CAD is modest (10.5%). Sensitivity analyses show these strategies dominated non-SPECT-based strategies for risk of CAD up to 4%. At higher levels of prevalence, invasive strategies may become worthwhile. Finally, sensitivity analyses show stress echocardiography as a potentially costeffective option, and further research to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of echocardiography should also be performed.This article was developed from a Technology Assessment Review conducted on behalf of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and was funded by the Department of Health on a grant administered by the National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. The Health Economics Research Unit and the Health Services Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Quality of life in the five years after intensive care : a cohort study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Economic evaluation of screening for open angle glaucoma

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide. Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ≤1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, “technician screening” compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < £30,000. Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.This study was developed from a health technology assessment on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG), funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project no. 04/08/02).Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Developing the Intervention and Outcome Components of a Proposed Randomised Controlled trial (RCT) of a National Screening Programme for Open Angle Glaucoma (OAG) : Medical Research Council funded trial platform study (G0701759): Study protocol

Postprin

Economic evaluation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Methods: A Markov model was developed to model cost-effectiveness over 25 years. Data on the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Data on costs came from a systematic review of economic evaluations and from published sources. The outcomes of the model were presented as the incremental cost per life year gained and using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) to illustrate the likelihood that a treatment was cost-effective at various threshold values for society’s willingness to pay for an additional life year. Results: Laparoscopic surgery was on average £300 more costly and slightly less effective than open surgery and had a 30% chance of being cost-effective if society is willing to pay £30,000 for a life year. One interpretation of the available data suggests equal survival and disease-free survival. Making this assumption, laparoscopic surgery had a greater chance of being considered cost-effective. Presenting the results as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) made no difference to the results, as utility data were poor. Evidence suggests short-term benefits following laparoscopic repair. This benefit would have to be at least 0.01 of a QALY for laparoscopic surgery to be considered cost-effective. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is likely to be associated with short-term quality of life benefits, similar long-term outcomes and an additional £300 per patient. A judgement is required as to whether the short-term benefits are worth this extra cost.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Randomised controlled trial comparing rubber band ligation with stapled haemorrhoidopexy for Grade II circumferential haemorrhoids : Long-term results

Peer reviewedPostprin

The introduction of new interventional procedures in the British National Health Service : A qualitative study

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin

Systematic review of economic evaluations of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

Objective Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000. Method Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain). Conclusion The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.Department of Health, National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedAuthor versio

Preferences for centralised emergency medical services: discrete choice experiment

Objectives It is desirable that public preferences are established and incorporated in emergency healthcare reforms. The aim of this study was to investigate preferences for local versus centralised provision of all emergency medical services (EMS) and explore what individuals think are important considerations for EMS delivery. Design A discrete choice experiment was conducted. The attributes used in the choice scenarios were: travel time to the hospital, waiting time to be seen, length of stay in the hospital, risks of dying, readmission and opportunity for outpatient care after emergency treatment at a local hospital. Setting North East England. Participants Participants were a randomly sampled general population, aged 16 years or above recruited from Healthwatch Northumberland network database of lay members and from clinical contact with Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust via Patient Experience Team. Primary and secondary outcome measures Analysis used logistic regression modelling techniques to determine the preference of each attribute. Marginal rates of substitution between attributes were estimated to understand the trade-offs individuals were willing to make. Results Responses were obtained from 148 people (62 completed a web and 86 a postal version). Respondents preferred shorter travel time to hospital, shorter waiting time, fewer number of days in hospital, low risk of death, low risk of readmission and outpatient follow-up care in their local hospital. However, individuals were willing to trade off increased travel time and waiting time for high-quality centralised care. Individuals were willing to travel 9 min more for a 1-day reduction in length of stay in the hospital, 38 min for a 1% reduction in risk of death and 112 min for having outpatient follow-up care at their local hospital. Conclusions People value centralised EMS if it provides higher quality care and are willing to travel further and wait longer

Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer : a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

© 2013 The Authors. BJU International © 2013 BJU International.Peer reviewedPublisher PD