Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was 28 pound 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to 11 pound 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and 15 pound 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

Evidence-based medicine is affordable: The cost-effectiveness of current compared with optimal treatment in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of averting the burden of disease. We used secondary population data and metaanalyses of various government-funded services and interventions to investigate the costs and benefits of various levels of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) in adults using a burden of disease framework. Method. Population burden was calculated for both diseases in the absence of any treatment as years lived with disability (YLD), ignoring the years of life lost. We then estimated the proportion of burden averted with current interventions, the proportion that could be averted with optimally implemented cut-rent evidence-based guidelines, and the direct treatment cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per YLD averted for both treatment levels. Results. The majority of people with arthritis sought medical treatment. Current treatment for RA averted 26% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 48% of the burden. with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000 per YLD averted. Current treatment of OA in Australia averted 27% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 39% of the burden, with an unchanged cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Conclusion. While the precise dollar costs in each country will differ, the relativities at this level of coverage should remain the same. There is no evidence that closing the gap between evidence and practice would result in a drop in efficiency.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with previous acute coronary syndromes aged 65 to 74 years compared with younger patients: Results from the LIPID study

Background We compared cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in a placebo-controlled trial in 5500 younger (31-64 years) and 3514 older patients (65-74 years) with previous acute coronary syndromes. Methods Hospitalizations and long-term medication within the 6 years of the trial were estimated in all patients. Drug dosage, nursing home, and ambulatory care costs were estimated from substudies. Incremental costs per life saved of pravastatin relative to placebo were estimated from treatment effects and resource use. Results Over 6 years, pravastatin reduced all-cause mortality by 4.3% in the older patients and by 2.3% in the younger patients. Older patients assigned pravastatin had marginally lower cost of pravastatin and other medication over 6 years (A$4442 vs A$4637), but greater cost offsets (A$2061 vs. A$897) from lower rates of hospitalizations. The incremental cost per life saved with pravastatin was A$55500 in the old and A$167200 in the young. Assuming no treatment effect beyond the study period, the life expectancy to age 82 years of additional survivors was 9.1 years in the older and. 17.3 years in the younger. Estimated additional life-years saved from pravastatin therapy were 0.39 years for older and 0.40 years for younger patients. Incremental costs per life-year saved were A$7581 in the older and A$1.4944 in the younger, if discounted at 5% per annum. Conclusions Pravastatin therapy was more cost-effective among older than younger patients, because of their higher baseline risk and greater cost offsets, despite their shorter life expectancy.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.

Colorectal cancer screening in Australia: an economic evaluation of a potential biennial screening program using faecal occult blood tests

Objective: To evaluate whether the introduction of a national, co-ordinated screening program using the faecal occult blood test represents 'value-for-money' from the perspective of the Australian Government as third-party funder. Methods: The annual equivalent costs and consequences of a biennial screening program in 'steady-state' operation were estimated for the Australian population using 1996 as the reference year. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and the years of life lost (YLLs) averted, and the health service costs were modelled, based on the epidemiology and the costs of colorectal cancer in Australia together with the mortality reduction achieved in randomised controlled trials. Uncertainty in the model was examined using Monte Carlo simulation methods. Results: We estimate a minimum or 'base program' of screening those aged 55 to 69 years could avert 250 deaths per annum (95% uncertainty interval 99-400), at a gross cost of $A55 million (95% UI $A46 million to $A96 million) and a gross incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $A17,000/DALY (95% UI $A13,000/DALY to $A52,000/DALY). Extending the program to include 70 to 74-year-olds is a more effective option (cheaper and higher health gain) than including the 50 to 54-year-olds. Conclusions: The findings of this study support the case for a national program directed at the 55 to 69-year-old age group with extension to 70 to 74-year-olds if there are sufficient resources. The pilot tests recently announced in Australia provide an important opportunity to consider the age range for screening and the sources of uncertainty, identified in the modelled evaluation, to assist decisions on implementing a full national program.

Teledermatology can produce high-quality care at low cost

Teledermatology can provide both accurate and reliable specialist care at a distance. This article reviews current data on the quality of care that teledermatology provides, as well as the societal cost benefits involved in the implementation of the technique. Teledermatology is most suited to patients unable to access specialist. services for geographical or social reasons. Patients are generally satisfied with the overall care that teledermatology provides. Real-time teledermatology is more expensive than conventional care for health services. However, significant savings can be expected from the patient's perspective due to reduced travel. Appropriate patient selection, improved technology and adequate clinical workloads may improve both the quality and cost effectiveness of this service.

The impact of chronic illness: partnerships with other healthcare professionals

Healthcare workforce shortfalls require a rethinking of models for delivering care to people with chronic disease. Chronic disease needs to be managed by a multiskilled team of healthcare professionals with specialist input. Education at undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate levels needs to prepare healthcare professionals for this new paradigm. Some tasks currently seen only as part of a doctor's purview could be performed by other trained professionals to allow doctors to concentrate on more appropriate activities. We need to explore new collaborations to deliver multidisciplinary healthcare for chronic disease and evaluate these for patient outcomes and cost effectiveness.