Amit Mukerji1, Amy Shafey2, Amish Jain3, Eyal Cohen3,4, Prakesh S Shah3,4, Beate Sander4,5, Vibhuti Shah3,4. 1. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. mukerji@mcmaster.ca. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previously conducted cost-effectiveness analyses of pulse oximetry screening (POS) for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) have shown it to be a cost-effective endeavour, but the geographical setting of Ontario in relation to its vast yet sparsely populated regions presents unique challenges. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of POS for CCHD in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing POS to no POS, was conducted from the Ontario healthcare payer perspective using a Markov model. The base case was defined as a well-appearing newborn at 24 h of age. Outcome measures, including quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) [ΔCost/ΔQALMs], were calculated over a lifetime horizon. All outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using an a priori ICER threshold of CAD$4166.67 per QALM (equivalent to CAD$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Implementation of POS is expected to lead to timely diagnosis of 51 CCHD cases annually. The incremental cost of performing POS was estimated to be $27.27 per screened individual, with a gain of 0.02455 QALMs. This yielded an ICER of CAD$1110.79 per QALM, well below the pre-determined threshold. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 92.3% chance of routine implementation of POS being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine implementation of POS for CCHD in Ontario is expected to be cost-effective.
OBJECTIVE: Previously conducted cost-effectiveness analyses of pulse oximetry screening (POS) for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) have shown it to be a cost-effective endeavour, but the geographical setting of Ontario in relation to its vast yet sparsely populated regions presents unique challenges. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of POS for CCHD in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing POS to no POS, was conducted from the Ontario healthcare payer perspective using a Markov model. The base case was defined as a well-appearing newborn at 24 h of age. Outcome measures, including quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) [ΔCost/ΔQALMs], were calculated over a lifetime horizon. All outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using an a priori ICER threshold of CAD$4166.67 per QALM (equivalent to CAD$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Implementation of POS is expected to lead to timely diagnosis of 51 CCHD cases annually. The incremental cost of performing POS was estimated to be $27.27 per screened individual, with a gain of 0.02455 QALMs. This yielded an ICER of CAD$1110.79 per QALM, well below the pre-determined threshold. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 92.3% chance of routine implementation of POS being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine implementation of POS for CCHD in Ontario is expected to be cost-effective.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness threshold; Cost-utility analysis; Health economics; Saturation screening; Utility
Authors: A K Ewer; A T Furmston; L J Middleton; J J Deeks; J P Daniels; H M Pattison; R Powell; T E Roberts; P Barton; P Auguste; A Bhoyar; S Thangaratinam; A M Tonks; P Satodia; S Deshpande; B Kumararatne; S Sivakumar; R Mupanemunda; K S Khan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Melissa G Y Lee; Christian P Brizard; John C Galati; Ajay J Iyengar; Sandeep S Rakhra; Igor E Konstantinov; Andreas Pflaumer; Yves d'Udekem Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Maria N Plana; Javier Zamora; Gautham Suresh; Luis Fernandez-Pineda; Shakila Thangaratinam; Andrew K Ewer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: David Stell; Jonathan James Noble; Rebecca Hazell Kay; Man Ting Kwong; Michael John Russell Jeffryes; Liam Johnston; Guy Glover; Emmanuel Akinluyi Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2022-02