Esther M Hopmans1, Ynte M Ruigrok1, Anne Se Bor1, Gabriel Je Rinkel1, Hendrik Koffijberg2,3. 1. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Technology and Services Research, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage have an increased risk of aneurysm formation and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, screening them for unruptured intracranial aneurysms was not beneficial in a modelling study from the 1990s. New data on the risk of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage in these persons and improved treatment techniques call for reassessment of the cost-effectiveness of screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and Monte Carlo simulation comparing screening and preventive aneurysm treatment with no screening in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. We analyzed the impact on quality-adjusted life years, costs and net health benefit of single screening (at varying screening age) and serial screening (with varying screening age and intervals) using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: In 17 of the 24 strategies assessed, additional costs for screening for unruptured intracranial aneurysm were <€20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The strategy with highest net health benefit was screening at age 40 and 55. Screening every five years from age 20 to 70 yielded the highest health benefits at the highest additional costs. DISCUSSION: Based on current risks of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and complications of preventive treatment, several strategies to screen for unruptured intracranial aneurysm in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage are cost effective compared with no screening, when applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: We recommend discussing with persons at risk the option of screening twice, at age 40 and 55, which will result overall in substantial health benefits at acceptable additional costs.
INTRODUCTION: Although persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage have an increased risk of aneurysm formation and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, screening them for unruptured intracranial aneurysms was not beneficial in a modelling study from the 1990s. New data on the risk of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage in these persons and improved treatment techniques call for reassessment of the cost-effectiveness of screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and Monte Carlo simulation comparing screening and preventive aneurysm treatment with no screening in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. We analyzed the impact on quality-adjusted life years, costs and net health benefit of single screening (at varying screening age) and serial screening (with varying screening age and intervals) using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: In 17 of the 24 strategies assessed, additional costs for screening for unruptured intracranial aneurysm were <€20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The strategy with highest net health benefit was screening at age 40 and 55. Screening every five years from age 20 to 70 yielded the highest health benefits at the highest additional costs. DISCUSSION: Based on current risks of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and complications of preventive treatment, several strategies to screen for unruptured intracranial aneurysm in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage are cost effective compared with no screening, when applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: We recommend discussing with persons at risk the option of screening twice, at age 40 and 55, which will result overall in substantial health benefits at acceptable additional costs.
Authors: Graham M Teasdale; Joanna M Wardlaw; Philip M White; Gordon Murray; Evelyn M Teasdale; Valerie Easton Journal: Brain Date: 2005-04-07 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: M J H Wermer; I C van der Schaaf; P Van Nunen; P M M Bossuyt; C S Anderson; G J E Rinkel Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-03-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: N K de Rooij; F H H Linn; J A van der Plas; A Algra; G J E Rinkel Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Marjan J Slob; Menno Sluzewski; Willem Jan van Rooij; Gerwin Roks; Gabriël J E Rinkel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y B W E M Roos; M G W Dijkgraaf; K W Albrecht; L F M Beenen; R J M Groen; R J de Haan; M Vermeulen Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Robert D Brown; John Huston; Richard Hornung; Tatiana Foroud; David F Kallmes; Dawn Kleindorfer; Irene Meissner; Daniel Woo; Laura Sauerbeck; Joseph Broderick Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Charlotte C M Zuurbier; Romain Bourcier; Pacôme Constant Dit Beaufils; Richard Redon; Hubert Desal; Anne S E Bor; Antti E Lindgren; Gabriel J E Rinkel; Jacoba P Greving; Ynte M Ruigrok Journal: Stroke Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kerry E Poppenberg; Lu Li; Muhammad Waqas; Nikhil Paliwal; Kaiyu Jiang; James N Jarvis; Yijun Sun; Kenneth V Snyder; Elad I Levy; Adnan H Siddiqui; John Kolega; Hui Meng; Vincent M Tutino Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240