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.
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.
Authors: Eloi Marijon; Phalla Ou; David S Celermajer; Beatriz Ferreira; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Dinesh Jani; Christophe Paquet; Sophie Jacob; Daniel Sidi; Xavier Jouven Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-08-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George Miller; Stephen Randolph; Emma Forkner; Brad Smith; Autumn Dawn Galbreath Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kathryn Roberts; Jeffrey Cannon; David Atkinson; Alex Brown; Graeme Maguire; Bo Remenyi; Gavin Wheaton; Elizabeth Geelhoed; Jonathan R Carapetis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Liesl J Zühlke; Andrea Beaton; Mark E Engel; Christopher T Hugo-Hamman; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Judith M Katzenellenbogen; Ntobeko Ntusi; Anna P Ralph; Anita Saxena; Pierre R Smeesters; David Watkins; Peter Zilla; Jonathan Carapetis Journal: Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med Date: 2017-02
Authors: Joselyn Rwebembera; Bruno Ramos Nascimento; Neema W Minja; Sarah de Loizaga; Twalib Aliku; Luiza Pereira Afonso Dos Santos; Bruno Fernandes Galdino; Luiza Silame Corte; Vicente Rezende Silva; Andrew Young Chang; Walderez Ornelas Dutra; Maria Carmo Pereira Nunes; Andrea Zawacki Beaton Journal: Pathogens Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Justin P Zachariah; Twalib Aliku; Amy Scheel; Babar S Hasan; Peter Lwabi; Craig Sable; Andrea Z Beaton Journal: Ann Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016 May-Aug
Authors: Jasper Ubels; Craig Sable; Andrea Z Beaton; Maria Carmo P Nunes; Kaciane K B Oliveira; Lara C Rabelo; Isabella M Teixeira; Gabriela Z L Ruiz; Letícia Maria M Rabelo; Alison R Tompsett; Antonio Luiz P Ribeiro; Klas-Göran Sahlen; Bruno R Nascimento Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2020-02-20
Authors: Lisa Helen Telford; Leila Hussein Abdullahi; Eleanor Atieno Ochodo; Liesl Joanna Zuhlke; Mark Emmanuel Engel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 2.692