Why the study?
Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery face high mortality risk, and the cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement programme evaluated in the EPOCH trial was unknown.
Is a national quality improvement programme cost-effective compared to usual care in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery?
Is a national quality improvement programme cost-effective compared to usual care in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery?
A national quality improvement programme for emergency abdominal surgery does not appear cost-effective at standard UK thresholds, though it may be for higher-risk patients over a lifetime.
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery are exposed to a high risk of death. A quality improvement (QI) programme to improve the survival for these patients was evaluated in the Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial. This study aims to assess its cost-effectiveness versus usual care from a UK health service perspective. METHODS: Data collected in a subsample of trial participants were employed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the QI programme and usual care within the 180-day trial period, with results also extrapolated to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The probability of being cost-effective was determined for different cost-effectiveness thresholds (£13,000 to £30,000 per QALY). Analyses were performed for lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups based on the number of surgical indications (single vs multiple). RESULTS: Within the trial period, QI was more costly (£467) but less effective (-0.002 QALYs). Over a lifetime, it was more costly (£1395) and more effective (0.018 QALYs), but did not appear to be cost-effective (ICER: £77,792 per QALY, higher than all cost-effectiveness thresholds; probability of being cost-effective: 28.7%-43.8% across the thresholds). For lower-risk patients, QI was more costly and less effective both within trial period and over a lifetime and it did not appear to be cost-effective. For higher-risk patients, it was more costly and more effective, and did not appear cost-effective within the trial period (ICER: £158,253 per QALY) but may be cost-effective over a lifetime (ICER: £14,293 per QALY). CONCLUSION: The QI programme does not appear cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. For patients with multiple surgical indications, this programme is potentially cost-effective over a lifetime, but this is highly uncertain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: