Key result
NT-proBNP screening is highly cost-effective for detecting heart failure at ~€3,000 per QALY.
Why the study?
Heart failure signs are nonspecific, and the cost-effectiveness of implementing NT-proBNP in the diagnostic algorithm for patients with or without type 2 diabetes in Austria and Switzerland was unknown.
Does NT-proBNP-supported screening improve cost-effectiveness compared to symptom-based diagnosis in undetected heart failure patients?
Does NT-proBNP-supported screening improve cost-effectiveness compared to symptom-based diagnosis in undetected heart failure patients?
NT-proBNP screening is a highly cost-effective diagnostic approach for detecting heart failure in primary care settings.
NT-proBNP screening may be cost-effective in primary care; modeling extends prior biomarker evidence but leaves open prospective validation.
Background: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with a global burden.Signs and symptoms of HF are nonspecific and often shared with other conditions.The N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serves as a useful biomarker for the diagnosis of HF not only in patients with acute symptoms but also in outpatients with an ambiguous clinical presentation.The aim of the analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing NT-proBNP in the diagnostic algorithm in patients with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), compared with a diagnosis based primarily on clinical signs or symptoms from the perspective of the Austrian and Swiss healthcare system.Methods: A time-discrete Markov model was developed to simulate the effect/improvement (lifetimecosts, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], and life-years [LYs]) due to an NT-proBNP screening in undetected HF patients.Undetected HF patients are included in the model according to a distribution of New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes.The model considers disease progression by transition of NYHA classes.Undetected patients may remain undetected or be detected with the help of NT-proBNP or symptoms.Patients with known HF exhibit a slower disease progression.The probability of dying is influenced by the respective NYHA class.Direct costs (2021 e or CHF) were derived from published sources.QALYs, LYs, and costs were discounted (3% p.a.).Results: In the per-patient analysis (at age 60 over lifetime), the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR)/ QALY of NT-proBNP vs. no screening was e3,042 for HF patients in Austria.Considering the total cohort of undetected HF patients (n 9,377) with the corresponding age structure over a lifetime, the ICUR increases to e4,356.In Switzerland, the per-patient results show an ICUR of CHF 897.Considering the total cohort of undetected HF patients (n 6,826) the ICUR amounts to CHF 4,513.If indirect costs are considered, NT-proBNP screening becomes the dominant strategy in both countries.Conclusion: Overall, the analysis concludes that screening with NT-proBNP is a highly cost-effective or cost-saving diagnostic option for patients with HF, and a sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walter et al. (2023) studied Undetected heart failure (n=16,203). NT-proBNP screening vs. Diagnosis based primarily on clinical signs or symptoms was evaluated on Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (ICUR €3,042 in Austria; CHF 897 in Switzerland). Screening with NT-proBNP was highly cost-effective compared to no screening for detecting heart failure, with an incremental cost-utility ratio per QALY of €3,042 in Austria and CHF 897 in Switzerland.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: