Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia

Objectives To assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia. Design Cost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated. Participants Simulated population aged 16­54 years in England and Wales. Interventions Identification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients. Main outcome measure Cost effectiveness calculated as cost per life year gained (extension of life expectancy resulting from intervention) including estimated costs of screening and treatment. Results Tracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (£3097 (&5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of £133 per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (£4914) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (£13 029 per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of £9754 per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (£2777 with a clinical confirmation). Conclusions Screening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population

A systematic review of the role of bisphosphonates in metastatic disease

Objectives: To identify evidence for the role of bisphosphonates in malignancy for the treatment of hypercalcaemia, prevention of skeletal morbidity and use in the adjuvant setting. To perform an economic review of current literature and model the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hypercalcaemia and prevention of skeletal morbidity Data sources: Electronic databases (1966-June 2001). Cochrane register. Pharmaceutical companies. Experts in the field. Handsearching of abstracts and leading oncology journals (1999-2001). Review methods: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, according to predetermined criteria, and extracted relevant data. Overall event rates were pooled in a meta-analysis, odds ratios ( OR) were given with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data could not be combined, studies were reported individually and proportions compared using chi- squared analysis. Cost and cost-effectiveness were assessed by a decision analytic model comparing different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of hypercalcaemia; Markov models were employed to evaluate the use of bisphosphonates to prevent skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma. Results: For acute hypercalcaemia of malignancy, bisphosphonates normalised serum calcium in >70% of patients within 2-6 days. Pamidronate was more effective than control, etidronate, mithramycin and low-dose clodronate, but equal to high dose clodronate, in achieving normocalcaemia. Pamidronate prolongs ( doubles) the median time to relapse compared with clodronate or etidronate. For prevention of skeletal morbidity, bisphosphonates compared with placebo, significantly reduced the OR for fractures (OR [95% CI], vertebral, 0.69 [0.57-0.84], non-vertebral, 0.65 [0.54-0.79], combined, 0.65 [0.55-0.78]) radiotherapy 0.67 [0.57-0.79] and hypercalcaemia 0.54 [0.36-0.81] but not orthopaedic surgery 0.70 [0.46-1.05] or spinal cord compression 0.71 [0.47-1.08]. However, reduction in orthopaedic surgery was significant in studies that lasted over a year 0.59 [0.39-0.88]. Bisphosphonates significantly increased the time to first SRE but did not affect survival. Subanalyses were performed for disease groups, drugs and route of administration. Most evidence supports the use of intravenous aminobisphosphonates. For adjuvant use of bisphosphonates, Clodronate, given to patients with primary operable breast cancer and no metastatic disease, significantly reduced the number of patients developing bone metastases. This benefit was not maintained once regular administration had been discontinued. Two trials reported significant survival advantages in the treated groups. Bisphosphonates reduce the number of bone metastases in patients with both early and advanced breast cancer. Bisphosphonates are well tolerated with a low incidence of side-effects. Economic modelling showed that for acute hypercalcaemia, drugs with the longest cumulative duration of normocalcaemia were most cost-effective. Zoledronate 4 mg was the most costly, but most cost-effective treatment. For skeletal morbidity, Markov models estimated that the overall cost of bisphosphonate therapy to prevent an SRE was pound250 and pound1500 per event for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma, respectively. Bisphosphonate treatment is sometimes cost-saving in breast cancer patients where fractures are prevented. Conclusions: High dose aminobisphosphonates are most effective for the treatment of acute hypercalcaemia and delay time to relapse. Bisphosphonates significantly reduce SREs and delay the time to first SRE in patients with bony metastatic disease but do not affect survival. Benefit is demonstrated after administration for at least 6-12 months. The greatest body of evidence supports the use of intravenous aminobisphosphonates. Further evidence is required to support use in the adjuvant setting

Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: The British family heart study

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund and is available from the specified link - Copyright @ 1996 BMJ Publishing Group.Objective-To measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme.Design-Cost effectiveness analysis of randomised controlled trial. Clinical and resource use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates.Setting-13 general practices across Britain.Subjects-4185 men aged 40-59 and their 2827 partners.Intervention-Nurse led programme using a family centred approach, with follow up according to degree of risk.Main outcome measures-Cost of the programme itself; overall short term cost to NHS; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk at one year.Results-Estimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was pound 63 per person (95% confidence interval pound 60 to pound 65). The overall short term cost to the health service was pound 77 per man (pound 29 to pound 124) but only pound 13 per woman (-pound 48 to pound 74), owing to differences in utilisation of other health service resources. The cost per 1% reduction in risk was pound 5.08 per man (pound 5.92 including broader health service costs) and pound 5.78 per woman (pound 1.28 taking into account wider health service savings).Conclusions-The direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately pound 58 000. Annually, pound 8300 would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the ma target on the health promotion bands, plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified. The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis

Objective: Published evidence indicates that surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic drainage for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus endoscopic drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Design: This trial-based cost-utility analysis (ISRCTN04572410) was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and during a 79-month time horizon. During the trial the details of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and pancreatic insufficiency were collected. The resource use was varied in the sensitivity analysis based on a review of the literature. The health outcome was the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), generated using EQ-5D data collected during the trial. There were no pancreas-related deaths in the trial. All-cause mortality from the trial was incorporated into the QALY estimates in the sensitivity analysis. Setting: Hospital. Participants: Patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness. Results: The result of the base-case analysis was that surgical drainage dominated endoscopic drainage, being both more effective and less costly. The sensitivity analysis varied mortality and resource use and showed that the surgical option remained dominant in all scenarios. The probability of cost-effectiveness for surgical drainage was 100% for the base case and 82% in the assessed most conservative case scenario. Conclusions: In obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical drainage is highly cost-effective compared with endoscopic drainage from a UK NHS perspective

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis.

Published evidence indicates that surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic drainage for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus endoscopic drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis

A descriptive study of UK cancer genetics services: an emerging clinical response to the new genetics

The objective was to describe NHS cancer genetic counselling services and compare UK regions. The study design was a cross-sectional study over 4 weeks and attendee survey. The setting was 22 of the 24 regional cancer genetics services in the UK NHS. Participants were individuals aged over 18 attending clinics at these services. Outcome measures were staff levels, referral rates, consultation rates, follow-up plans, waiting time. There were only 11 dedicated cancer geneticists across the 22 centres. Referrals were mainly concerned with breast (63%), bowel (18%) and ovarian (12%) cancers. Only 7% of referrals were for men and 3% were for individuals from ethnic minorities. Referral rates varied from 76 to 410 per million per annum across the regions. Median waiting time for an initial appointment was 19 weeks, ranging across regions from 4 to 53 weeks. Individuals at population-level genetic risk accounted for 27% of consultations (range 0%, 58%). Shortfalls in cancer genetics staff and in the provision of genetic testing and cancer surveillance have resulted in large regional variations in access to care. Initiatives to disseminate referral and management guidelines to cancer units and primary care should be adequately resourced so that clinical genetics teams can focus on the genetic testing and management of high-risk families. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.co

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Natriuretic Peptide Testing and Specialist Management in Patients with Suspected Acute Heart Failure

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP) testing and specialist outreach in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) residing off the cardiology ward. Methods: We used a Markov model to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected AHF. We examined diagnostic workup with and without the NP test in suspected new cases, and we examined the impact of specialist heart failure outreach in all suspected cases. Inputs for the model were derived from systematic reviews, the UK national heart failure audit, randomized controlled trials, expert consensus from a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline development group, and a national online survey. The main benefit from specialist care (cardiology ward and specialist outreach) was the increased likelihood of discharge on disease-modifying drugs for people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which improve mortality and reduce re-admissions due to worsened heart failure (associated with lower utility). Costs included diagnostic investigations, admissions, pharmacological therapy, and follow-up heart failure care. Results: NP testing and specialist outreach are both higher cost, higher QALY, cost-effective strategies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £11,656 and £2,883 per QALY gained, respectively). Combining NP and specialist outreach is the most cost-effective strategy. This result was robust to both univariate deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: NP testing for the diagnostic workup of new suspected AHF is cost-effective. The use of specialist heart failure outreach for inpatients with AHF residing off the cardiology ward is cost-effective. Both interventions will help improve outcomes for this high-risk group