Key result
SPECT-CA shows ~90% likelihood of being the optimal cost-effective diagnostic strategy for CAD.
Why the study?
An economic evaluation of SPECT for diagnosis and management of CAD was needed to assess cost-effectiveness compared to non-SPECT strategies.
Are SPECT-based diagnostic strategies cost-effective compared to non-SPECT strategies for the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease?
Are SPECT-based diagnostic strategies cost-effective compared to non-SPECT strategies for the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease?
SPECT-based diagnostic strategies are likely cost-effective for evaluating patients with a modest risk (10.5%) of coronary artery disease, whereas invasive strategies become optimal at higher prevalence levels.
SPECT strategies may be cost-effective at 10.5% CAD prevalence in models; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death in the United Kingdom, accounting for more than 120,000 deaths in 2001, among the highest rates in the world. This study reports an economic evaluation of single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (SPECT) for the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Strategies involving SPECT with and without stress electrocardiography (ECG) and coronary angiography (CA) were compared to diagnostic strategies not involving SPECT. The diagnosis decision was modeled with a decision tree model and long-term costs and consequences using a Markov model. Data to populate the models were obtained from a series of systematic reviews. Unlike earlier evaluations, a probabilistic analysis was included to assess the statistical imprecision of the results. The results are presented in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: At prevalence levels of CAD of 10.5%, SPECT-based strategies are cost-effective; ECG-CA is highly unlikely to be optimal. At a ceiling ratio of Pound 20,000 per QALY, SPECT-CA has a 90% likelihood of being optimal. Beyond this threshold, this strategy becomes less likely to be cost-effective. At more than Pound 75,000 per QALY, coronary angiography is most likely to be optimal. For higher levels of prevalence (around 50%) and more than a Pound 10,000 per QALY threshold, coronary angiography is the optimal decision. CONCLUSIONS: SPECT-based strategies are likely to be cost-effective when risk of CAD is modest (10.5%). Sensitivity analyses show these strategies dominated non-SPECT-based strategies for risk of CAD up to 4%. At higher levels of prevalence, invasive strategies may become worthwhile. Finally, sensitivity analyses show stress echocardiography as a potentially cost-effective option, and further research to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of echocardiography should also be performed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hernández et al. (2007) studied Coronary artery disease. Single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (SPECT) vs. Diagnostic strategies not involving SPECT was evaluated on Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). At a CAD prevalence of 10.5%, SPECT-based strategies are cost-effective, with SPECT-CA having a 90% likelihood of being optimal at a £20,000 per QALY threshold.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: