Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2010
Cost effectiveness of mass screening for coeliac disease is determined by time-delay to diagnosis and quality of life on a gluten-free diet.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hershcovici T, Leshno M, Goldin E, Shamir R, Israeli E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Coeliac disease is frequently diagnosed after a long delay resulting in increased morbidity and mortality.
AIMS: To define the parameters which have the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness of mass screening for coeliac disease.
METHODS: A Markov model examined a coeliac disease screening programme of the healthy young-adult general population compared with a no-screening strategy. The main outcome measures were quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Effects of variables were examined using sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The screening strategy resulted in a gain of 0.0027 QALYs. The ICER of screening vs. no-screening strategy was US$48,960/QALYs. The variables with the largest impact on cost effectiveness were: the time delay from symptom onset to diagnosis, the utility of adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) and the prevalence of coeliac disease. Screening would be cost-effective if the time delay to diagnosis is longer than 6 years and utility of GFD adherence is greater than 0.978.
CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that mass screening for coeliac disease of the young-adult general population is associated with improved QALYs and is a cost effectiveness strategy. Shortening of the time-delay to diagnosis by heightened awareness of health-care professionals may be a valid alternative to screening.
AIMS: To define the parameters which have the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness of mass screening for coeliac disease.
METHODS: A Markov model examined a coeliac disease screening programme of the healthy young-adult general population compared with a no-screening strategy. The main outcome measures were quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Effects of variables were examined using sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: The screening strategy resulted in a gain of 0.0027 QALYs. The ICER of screening vs. no-screening strategy was US$48,960/QALYs. The variables with the largest impact on cost effectiveness were: the time delay from symptom onset to diagnosis, the utility of adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) and the prevalence of coeliac disease. Screening would be cost-effective if the time delay to diagnosis is longer than 6 years and utility of GFD adherence is greater than 0.978.
CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that mass screening for coeliac disease of the young-adult general population is associated with improved QALYs and is a cost effectiveness strategy. Shortening of the time-delay to diagnosis by heightened awareness of health-care professionals may be a valid alternative to screening.