D Yin1, J P Carpenter. 1. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The benefit of carotid endarterectomy for patients who are asymptomatic with > 60% carotid stenosis has been established by the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Which screening strategy is most appropriate is still unclear. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with a Markov model and with data from ACAS and other studies. RESULTS: For 60-year-old patients with a 5% prevalence of 60% to 99% asymptomatic stenosis, duplex ultrasound screening increased average quality-adjusted life years (QALY; 11.485 vs 11.473) and lifetime cost of care ($5500 vs $5012) under base-case assumptions. The incremental cost per QALY gained (cost-effectiveness ratio) was $39,495. Screening was cost-effective with the following conditions: disease prevalence was 4.5% or more, the specificity of the screening test (ultrasound) was 91% or more, the stroke rate of patients who were medically treated was 3.3% or more, the relative risk reduction of surgery was 37% or more, the stroke rate associated with surgery was 160% or less than that of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial or ACAS perioperative complication rates, and the cost of ultrasound screening was $300 or less. A one-time screening, compared with a screening every 5 years, had more QALY (11.485 vs 11.482) and lower cost ($5500 vs $5790). Screening without arteriography, compared with screening with arteriographic verification, provided few additional QALYs (11.486 vs 11.485) at additional cost ($6896 vs $5500). The cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to assumptions about the stroke rate of patients who were asymptomatic and other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis can be cost-effective when both screening and carotid endarterectomy are performed in centers of excellence.
PURPOSE: The benefit of carotid endarterectomy for patients who are asymptomatic with > 60% carotid stenosis has been established by the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Which screening strategy is most appropriate is still unclear. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with a Markov model and with data from ACAS and other studies. RESULTS: For 60-year-old patients with a 5% prevalence of 60% to 99% asymptomatic stenosis, duplex ultrasound screening increased average quality-adjusted life years (QALY; 11.485 vs 11.473) and lifetime cost of care ($5500 vs $5012) under base-case assumptions. The incremental cost per QALY gained (cost-effectiveness ratio) was $39,495. Screening was cost-effective with the following conditions: disease prevalence was 4.5% or more, the specificity of the screening test (ultrasound) was 91% or more, the stroke rate of patients who were medically treated was 3.3% or more, the relative risk reduction of surgery was 37% or more, the stroke rate associated with surgery was 160% or less than that of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial or ACAS perioperative complication rates, and the cost of ultrasound screening was $300 or less. A one-time screening, compared with a screening every 5 years, had more QALY (11.485 vs 11.482) and lower cost ($5500 vs $5790). Screening without arteriography, compared with screening with arteriographic verification, provided few additional QALYs (11.486 vs 11.485) at additional cost ($6896 vs $5500). The cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to assumptions about the stroke rate of patients who were asymptomatic and other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for asymptomatic carotid stenosis can be cost-effective when both screening and carotid endarterectomy are performed in centers of excellence.
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Jarett D Berry; Todd M Brown; Mercedes R Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni de Simone; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Kurt J Greenlund; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; P Michael Ho; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Mary M McDermott; James B Meigs; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Wayne D Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Randall S Stafford; Tanya N Turan; Melanie B Turner; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David J Carpenter; Yvonne M Mowery; Gloria Broadwater; Anna Rodrigues; Amy J Wisdom; Jennifer A Dorth; Pretesh R Patel; Cynthia K Shortell; Robert Clough; David M Brizel Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Arthur Knapp; Violetta Cetrullo; Brett A Sillars; Nat Lenzo; Wendy A Davis; Timothy M E Davis Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 6.118