The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma:A systematic review and economic evaluation

Objectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3-4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach cost-effectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty, in particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not cost-effective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2007. All rights reserved.

Systematic Review Protocol to Evaluate the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Personalised Surveillance after Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is 5% and five-year survival at early-stage is 92%. CRC risk following index colonoscopy should establish post-screening surveillance benefit, which may be greater in high-risk patients. This review evaluated published cost-effectiveness estimates of post-polypectomy surveillance to assess the potential for personalised recommendations by risk sub-group. Current data suggested colonoscopy identifies those at low-risk of CRC, who may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harms and inefficient use of colonoscopy resources. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced-neoplasia post-polypectomy for low-risk was comparable to those without adenoma; both rates were under the lifetime risk of 5%. Therefore, greater personalisation through de-intensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial and could employ non-invasive testing such as faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention, thereby reserving colonoscopy for targeted use in personalised risk-stratified surveillance.
This systematic review aims to:
1. Assess if there is evidence supporting a program of personalised surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk sub-group.
2. Compare the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies.
3. Assess trade-off between costs, benefits and adverse effects which must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalised surveillance.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a physical activity loyalty scheme for behaviour change maintenance: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background
Increasing physical activity in the workplace can provide employee physical and mental health benefits, and employer economic benefits through reduced absenteeism and increased productivity. The workplace is an opportune setting to encourage habitual activity. However, there is limited evidence on effective behaviour change interventions that lead to maintained physical activity. This study aims to address this gap and help build the necessary evidence base for effective, and cost-effective, workplace interventions

Methods/design
This cluster randomised control trial will recruit 776 office-based employees from public sector organisations in Belfast and Lisburn city centres, Northern Ireland. Participants will be randomly allocated by cluster to either the Intervention Group or Control Group (waiting list control). The 6-month intervention consists of rewards (retail vouchers, based on similar principles to high street loyalty cards), feedback and other evidence-based behaviour change techniques. Sensors situated in the vicinity of participating workplaces will promote and monitor minutes of physical activity undertaken by participants. Both groups will complete all outcome measures. The primary outcome is steps per day recorded using a pedometer (Yamax Digiwalker CW-701) for 7 consecutive days at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. Secondary outcomes include health, mental wellbeing, quality of life, work absenteeism and presenteeism, and use of healthcare resources. Process measures will assess intervention “dose”, website usage, and intervention fidelity. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the National Health Service, employer and retailer perspective using both a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness framework. The inclusion of a discrete choice experiment will further generate values for a cost-benefit analysis. Participant focus groups will explore who the intervention worked for and why, and interviews with retailers will elucidate their views on the sustainability of a public health focused loyalty card scheme.

Discussion
The study is designed to maximise the potential for roll-out in similar settings, by engaging the public sector and business community in designing and delivering the intervention. We have developed a sustainable business model using a ‘points’ based loyalty platform, whereby local businesses ‘sponsor’ the incentive (retail vouchers) in return for increased footfall to their business.

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of an Adapted U.S. Model of Pharmaceutical Care for Nursing Home Residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland Study): A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study).
DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n511) or control (usual care continued; n511).
PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N5253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months.
INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents’ clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention.
MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article.
RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% con?dence interval.