European heart journal · 2022
Cost effectiveness of population screening vs. no screening for cardiovascular disease: the Danish Cardiovascular Screening trial (DANCAVAS).
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Søgaard Rikke, Diederichsen Axel Cosmus Pyndt, Rasmussen Lars M, Lambrechtsen Jess, Steffensen Flemming H, Frost Lars, Egstrup Kenneth, Urbonaviciene Grazina, Busk Martin, Lindholt Jes S
Аннотация
AIMS: A recent trial has shown that screening of men for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may reduce all-cause mortality. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of such screening vs. no screening from the perspective of European healthcare systems.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized controlled trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluation with a mean 5.7 years of follow-up. Screening was based on low-dose computed tomography to detect coronary artery calcification and aortic/iliac aneurysms, limb blood pressure measurement to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension, telemetric assessment of the heart rhythm to detect atrial fibrillation, and measurements of the cholesterol and HgbA1c levels. Censoring-adjusted incremental costs, life years (LY), and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) were estimated and used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The incremental cost of screening for the entire health care sector was €207 [95% confidence interval (CI) -24; 438, P = 0.078] per invitee for which gains of 0.019 LY (95% CI -0.007; 0.045, P = 0.145) and 0.023 QALY (95% CI -0.001; 0.046, P = 0.051) were achieved. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were of €10 812 per LY and €9075 per QALY, which would be cost effective at probabilities of 0.73 and 0.83 for a willingness to pay of €20 000. Assessment of population heterogeneity showed that cost effectiveness could be more attractive for younger men without CVD at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive screening for CVD is overall cost effective at conventional thresholds for willingness to pay and also competitive to the cost effectiveness of common cancer screening programmes. The screening target group, however, needs to be settled.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized controlled trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluation with a mean 5.7 years of follow-up. Screening was based on low-dose computed tomography to detect coronary artery calcification and aortic/iliac aneurysms, limb blood pressure measurement to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension, telemetric assessment of the heart rhythm to detect atrial fibrillation, and measurements of the cholesterol and HgbA1c levels. Censoring-adjusted incremental costs, life years (LY), and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) were estimated and used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The incremental cost of screening for the entire health care sector was €207 [95% confidence interval (CI) -24; 438, P = 0.078] per invitee for which gains of 0.019 LY (95% CI -0.007; 0.045, P = 0.145) and 0.023 QALY (95% CI -0.001; 0.046, P = 0.051) were achieved. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were of €10 812 per LY and €9075 per QALY, which would be cost effective at probabilities of 0.73 and 0.83 for a willingness to pay of €20 000. Assessment of population heterogeneity showed that cost effectiveness could be more attractive for younger men without CVD at baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive screening for CVD is overall cost effective at conventional thresholds for willingness to pay and also competitive to the cost effectiveness of common cancer screening programmes. The screening target group, however, needs to be settled.