OBJECTIVE: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic diabetic patients with two additional atherogenic risk factors has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Diabetes Association, but its cost-effectiveness is yet to be determined. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and determine acceptable strategies. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was performed from a societal perspective to measure the clinical benefit and economic consequences of CAD screening in asymptomatic men with diabetes and two additional atherogenic risk factors. We evaluated cohorts of patients stratified by different age groups, and 10 possible combination pairs of atherogenic risks. Incremental cost-effectiveness of no screening, exercise electrocardiography, exercise echocardiography, or exercise single-photon emission-tomography (SPECT) was calculated. Input data were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with no screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exercise electrocardiography was $41,600/QALY in 60-year-old asymptomatic diabetic men with hypertension and smoking, but was weakly dominated by exercise echocardiography. Exercise echocardiography was most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,800/QALY. Exercise SPECT was dominated by other strategies. Sensitivity analyses found that results varied depending on age, combination of additional atherogenic risk factors, and diagnostic test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD screening in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and two or more additional atherogenic risk factors is shown to be acceptable from a societal perspective. Exercise echocardiography was the most cost-effective strategy, followed by exercise electrocardiography.
OBJECTIVE: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic diabeticpatients with two additional atherogenic risk factors has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Diabetes Association, but its cost-effectiveness is yet to be determined. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and determine acceptable strategies. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was performed from a societal perspective to measure the clinical benefit and economic consequences of CAD screening in asymptomatic men with diabetes and two additional atherogenic risk factors. We evaluated cohorts of patients stratified by different age groups, and 10 possible combination pairs of atherogenic risks. Incremental cost-effectiveness of no screening, exercise electrocardiography, exercise echocardiography, or exercise single-photon emission-tomography (SPECT) was calculated. Input data were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with no screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exercise electrocardiography was $41,600/QALY in 60-year-old asymptomatic diabeticmen with hypertension and smoking, but was weakly dominated by exercise echocardiography. Exercise echocardiography was most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,800/QALY. Exercise SPECT was dominated by other strategies. Sensitivity analyses found that results varied depending on age, combination of additional atherogenic risk factors, and diagnostic test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD screening in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and two or more additional atherogenic risk factors is shown to be acceptable from a societal perspective. Exercise echocardiography was the most cost-effective strategy, followed by exercise electrocardiography.
Authors: M Naka; K Hiramatsu; T Aizawa; A Momose; K Yoshizawa; S Shigematsu; F Ishihara; A Niwa; T Yamada Journal: Am Heart J Date: 1992-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J Tsevat; L Goldman; J R Soukup; G A Lamas; K F Connors; C C Chapin; T H Lee Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 1993 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: D R Holmes; R Holubkov; R E Vlietstra; S F Kelsey; G S Reeder; G Dorros; D O Williams; M J Cowley; D P Faxon; K M Kent Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1988-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Julia E H Nolte; Till Neumann; Jennifer M Manne; Janet Lo; Anja Neumann; Sarah Mostardt; Suhny Abbara; Udo Hoffmann; Thomas J Brady; Juergen Wasem; Steven K Grinspoon; G Scott Gazelle; Alexander Goehler Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Alexander Goehler; Pamela M McMahon; Heidi S Lumish; Carol C Wu; Vidit Munshi; Michael Gilmore; Jonathan H Chung; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Daniel Mark; Quynh A Truong; G Scott Gazelle; Udo Hoffmann Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard Brandon Stacey; Janice Zgibor; Paul E Leaverton; Douglas D Schocken; Jennifer A Peregoy; Mary F Lyles; Alain G Bertoni; Gregory L Burke Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 5.562