Key result
Two-stage echo screening for rheumatic heart disease in 11-year-old children was projected to be cost-effective, with incremental costs of -$432 and 0.007 incremental QALYs compared to no screening.
Why the study?
Does a 2-staged echocardiography-based screening program improve quality-adjusted life years and reduce societal costs in 11-year-old children compared to no screening?
Does a 2-staged echocardiography-based screening program improve quality-adjusted life years and reduce societal costs in 11-year-old children compared to no screening?
Effect estimate: Incremental costs -$432; incremental QALYs 0.007 (95% CI Costs: -1357 to 575; QALYs: -0.0101 to 0.0237)
A two-stage echocardiography screening program for rheumatic heart disease in 11-year-old children is highly likely to be cost-saving and modestly more effective than no screening.
May inform RHD screening policies in endemic areas; leaves open prospective validation of modeled benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To project the cost-effectiveness of population-based echo screening to prevent rheumatic heart disease (RHD) consequences. BACKGROUND: RHD is a leading cause of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity during adolescence and young adulthood in low- and middle-per capita income settings. Echocardiography-based screening approaches can dramatically expand the number of children identified at risk of progressive RHD. Cost-effectiveness analysis can inform public health agencies and payers about the net economic benefit of such large-scale population-based screening. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed comparing a no-screen to echo screen approach. The echo screen program was modeled as a 2-staged screen of a cohort of 11-year-old children with initial short screening performed by dedicated technicians and follow-up complete echo by cardiologists. Penicillin RHD prophylaxis was modeled to only reduce rheumatic fever recurrence-related exacerbation. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs (in 2010 Australian dollars) associated with each approach were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed on RHD prevalence and transition probabilities; echocardiography test characteristics; and societal level costs including supplies, transportation, and labor. RESULTS: The incremental costs and QALYs of the screen compared to no screen strategy were -$432 (95% CI = -$1357 to $575) and 0.007 (95% CI = -0.0101 to 0.0237), respectively. The joint probability that the screen was both less costly and more effective exceeded 80%. Sensitivity analyses suggested screen strategy dominance depends mostly on the probability of transitioning out of sub-clinical RHD. CONCLUSION: Two-stage echo RHD screening and secondary prophylaxis may achieve modestly improved outcomes at lower cost compared to clinical detection and deserves closer attention from health policy stakeholders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zachariah et al. (2015) studied Rheumatic heart disease (RHD). 2-staged echo screening and secondary prophylaxis vs. No screen approach was evaluated on Incremental costs and Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (Incremental costs -$432; incremental QALYs 0.007, 95% CI Costs: -1357 to 575; QALYs: -0.0101 to 0.0237). Two-stage echo screening for rheumatic heart disease in 11-year-old children was projected to be cost-effective, with incremental costs of -$432 and 0.007 incremental QALYs compared to no screening.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: