Key result
Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening demonstrated adequate incremental cost-utility ratios compared to no screening in 9 out of 10 analyzed studies.
Why the study?
Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease with excellent routine treatment results, prompting evaluation of the results and methodological quality of cost-utility studies on screening versus no screening to guide new AAA screening programs.
Does abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening provide adequate cost-utility compared to no screening?
Systematic Review (n=10)
Does abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening provide adequate cost-utility compared to no screening?
Systematic review confirms that AAA screening programs demonstrate adequate cost-utility ratios, supporting the implementation of new national screening programs.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Most reviewed studies support AAA screening cost-utility despite limitations; leaves open national-level confirmation before new programs.
INTRODUCTION: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease that can lead to death. It is easily diagnosed with noninvasive methods and its routine treatment has excellent results. This creates an optimal situation for population screening programs. The aim of this paper was to assess results and methodological quality of cost-utility studies on screening versus no screening scenarios for AAA to assess future establishment of new AAA screening programs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITON: A systematic review of efficiency (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) studies was performed, finally selecting cost-utility studies on AAA screening versus no screening. Papers were selected that dealt with efficiency of screening for AAA according to PICOTS framework and the methodological quality assessed according to the economic evaluation analyses described by Drummond and Caro. Two independent reviewers were involved in the procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Research retrieved 88 studies. From those, 26 showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results. Finally, 10 studies had cost-utility results and suited criteria (published in the last 10 years; time-horizon: 10 years or more) for exhaustive analysis. All publications, except one, showed adequate incremental cost-utility ratios according to different national perspectives. Methodological assessment showed some quality limitations, but the majority of items analyzed were favorably answered after applying the questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: Confirmation of the cost-utility results in this revision at a national/regional level should be the basis for the implantation of new national screening programs worldwide. The methodological evaluation applied in this revision is crucial for the corresponding future piggy-back trials to assess routine application of national AAA screening programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fité et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=10). Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening vs. No screening was evaluated on Incremental cost-utility ratios. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening demonstrated adequate incremental cost-utility ratios compared to no screening in 9 out of 10 analyzed studies.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: