Cost-effectiveness Of Opportunistic Screening Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom in older patients using digital approaches

AimScreening for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is key in identifying patients with undiagnosed disease who may be eligible for anticoagulation therapy. Understanding the economic value of screening is necessary to assess optimal strategies for payers and healthcare systems. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of opportunistic screening with handheld digital devices and pulse palpation, as well as targeted screening predictive algorithms for UK patients ≥75 years of age.MethodsA previously developed Markov cohort model was adapted to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of opportunistic screening including pulse palpation, Zenicor (extended 14 days), KardiaMobile (extended), and two algorithms compared to no screening. Key model inputs including epidemiology estimates, screening effectiveness, and risks for medical events were derived from the STROKESTOP, ARISTOTLE studies, and published literature, and cost inputs were obtained from a UK national cost database. Health and cost outcomes, annually discounted at 3.5%, were reported for a cohort of 10,000 patients vs. no screening over a time horizon equivalent to a patient’s lifetime, Analyses were performed from a UK National Health Services and personal social services perspective.ResultsZenicor, pulse palpation, and KardiaMobile were dominant (providing better health outcomes at lower costs) vs. no screening; both algorithms were cost-effective vs. no screening, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £1,040 and £1,166. Zenicor, pulse palpation, and KardiaMobile remained dominant options vs. no screening in all scenarios explored. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated long-term stroke care costs, prevalence of undiagnosed NVAF in patients 75–79 years of age, and clinical efficacy of anticoagulant on stroke prevention were the main drivers of the cost-effectiveness results.ConclusionsScreening for NVAF at ≥75 years of age could result in fewer NVAF-related strokes. NVAF screening is cost-effective and may be cost-saving depending on the program chosen.

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Opportunistic Screening and Stepped-care Interventions for Older Alcohol Users in Primary Care.

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention versus a minimal intervention for the treatment of older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. Multi-centre, pragmatic RCT, set in Primary Care in UK. Patients aged ≥ 55 years scoring ≥ 8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test were allocated either to 5-min of brief advice or to 'Stepped Care': an initial 20-min of behavioural change counselling, with Step 2 being three sessions of Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Step 3 referral to local alcohol services (progression between each Step being determined by outcomes 1 month after each Step). Outcome measures included average drinks per day, AUDIT-C, alcohol-related problems using the Drinking Problems Index, health-related quality of life using the Short Form 12, costs measured from a NHS/Personal Social Care perspective and estimated health gains in quality adjusted life-years measured assessed EQ-5D. Both groups reduced alcohol consumption at 12 months but the difference between groups was small and not significant. No significant differences were observed between the groups on secondary outcomes. In economic terms stepped care was less costly and more effective than the minimal intervention. Stepped care does not confer an advantage over a minimal intervention in terms of reduction in alcohol use for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. However, stepped care has a greater probability of being more cost-effective. Current controlled trials ISRCTN52557360. A stepped care approach was compared with brief intervention for older at-risk drinkers attending primary care. While consumption reduced in both groups over 12 months there was no significant difference between the groups. An economic analysis indicated the stepped care which had a greater probability of being more cost-effective than brief intervention.

AESOPS: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care

There is clear evidence of the detrimental impact of hazardous alcohol consumption on the physical and mental health of the population. Estimates suggest that hazardous alcohol consumption annually accounts for 150,000 hospital admissions and between 15,000 and 22,000 deaths in the UK. In the older population, hazardous alcohol consumption is associated with a wide range of physical, psychological and social problems. There is evidence of an association between increased alcohol consumption and increased risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension and haemorrhagic and ischaemic stroke, increased rates of alcohol-related liver disease and increased risk of a range of cancers. Alcohol is identified as one of the three main risk factors for falls. Excessive alcohol consumption in older age can also contribute to the onset of dementia and other age-related cognitive deficits and is implicated in one-third of all suicides in the older population. To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention against a minimal intervention in the treatment of older hazardous alcohol users in primary care. A multicentre, pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. General practices in primary care in England and Scotland between April 2008 and October 2010. Adults aged ≥ 55 years scoring ≥ 8 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (10-item) (AUDIT) were eligible. In total, 529 patients were randomised in the study. The minimal intervention group received a 5-minute brief advice intervention with the practice or research nurse involving feedback of the screening results and discussion regarding the health consequences of continued hazardous alcohol consumption. Those in the stepped care arm initially received a 20-minute session of behavioural change counselling, with referral to step 2 (motivational enhancement therapy) and step 3 (local specialist alcohol services) if indicated. Sessions were recorded and rated to ensure treatment fidelity. The primary outcome was average drinks per day (ADD) derived from extended AUDIT--Consumption (3-item) (AUDIT-C) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were AUDIT-C score at 6 and 12 months; alcohol-related problems assessed using the Drinking Problems Index (DPI) at 6 and 12 months; health-related quality of life assessed using the Short Form Questionnaire-12 items (SF-12) at 6 and 12 months; ADD at 6 months; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (for cost-utility analysis derived from European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions); and health and social care resource use associated with the two groups. Both groups reduced alcohol consumption between baseline and 12 months. The difference between groups in log-transformed ADD at 12 months was very small, at 0.025 [95% confidence interval (CI)--0.060 to 0.119], and not statistically significant. At month 6 the stepped care group had a lower ADD, but again the difference was not statistically significant. At months 6 and 12, the stepped care group had a lower DPI score, but this difference was not statistically significant at the 5% level. The stepped care group had a lower SF-12 mental component score and lower physical component score at month 6 and month 12, but these differences were not statistically significant at the 5% level. The overall average cost per patient, taking into account health and social care resource use, was £488 [standard deviation (SD) £826] in the stepped care group and £482 (SD £826) in the minimal intervention group at month 6. The mean QALY gains were slightly greater in the stepped care group than in the minimal intervention group, with a mean difference of 0.0058 (95% CI -0.0018 to 0.0133), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £1100 per QALY gained. At month 12, participants in the stepped care group incurred fewer costs, with a mean difference of -£194 (95% CI -£585 to £198), and had gained 0.0117 more QALYs (95% CI -0.0084 to 0.0318) than the control group. Therefore, from an economic perspective the minimal intervention was dominated by stepped care but, as would be expected given the effectiveness results, the difference was small and not statistically significant. Stepped care does not confer an advantage over minimal intervention in terms of reduction in alcohol consumption at 12 months post intervention when compared with a 5-minute brief (minimal) intervention. This trial is registered as ISRCTN52557360. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 25. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness of Opportunistic Screening and Minimal Contact Psychotherapy to Prevent Depression in Primary Care Patients

BackgroundDepression causes a large burden of disease worldwide. Effective prevention has the potential to reduce that burden considerably. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of minimal contact psychotherapy, based on Lewinsohn's ‘Coping with depression’ course, targeted at opportunistically screened individuals with sub-threshold depression.Methods and ResultsUsing a Markov model, future health effects and costs of an intervention scenario and a current practice scenario were estimated. The time horizon was five years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed in euro per Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was employed to study the effect of uncertainty in the model parameters. From the health care perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 1,400 per DALY, and from the societal perspective the intervention was cost-saving. Although the estimated incremental costs and effects were surrounded with large uncertainty, given a willingness to pay of € 20,000 per DALY, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective was around 80%.ConclusionThis modelling study showed that opportunistic screening in primary care for sub-threshold depression in combination with minimal contact psychotherapy may be cost-effective in the prevention of major depression.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stepped care intervention for alcohol use disorders in primary care: pilot study

Screening for alcohol use disorders identifies a wide range of needs, varying from hazardous and harmful drinking to alcohol dependence. Stepped care offers a potentially resource-efficient way of meeting these needs, but requires evaluation in a randomised controlled trial. To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and a stepped care intervention in primary care. A total of 1794 male primary care attendees at six practices in South Wales were screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Of these, 112 participants who scored 8 or more on the AUDIT and who consented to enter the study were randomised to receive either 5 minutes of minimal intervention delivered by a practice nurse (control group) or stepped care intervention consisting of three successive steps (intervention group): a single session of behaviour change counselling delivered by a practice nurse; four 50-minute sessions of motivational enhancement therapy delivered by a trained alcohol counsellor; and referral to a community alcohol treatment agency. Both groups reduced alcohol consumption 6 months after randomisation with a greater, although not significant, improvement for the stepped care intervention. Motivation to change was greater following the stepped care intervention. The stepped care intervention resulted in greater cost savings compared with the minimal intervention. Stepped care was feasible to implement in the primary care setting and resulted in greater cost savings compared with minimal intervention.