Point-of-care diagnostic tests for influenza in the emergency department: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a high-risk population from a Canadian perspective.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
22
05
2020
accepted:
30
10
2020
entrez:
16
11
2020
pubmed:
17
11
2020
medline:
6
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of novel rapid diagnostic tests: rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT), digital immunoassays (DIA), rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), and other treatment algorithms for influenza in high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness (ILI). We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic test strategies (RIDT, DIA, NAAT, clinical judgement, batch polymerase chain reaction) preceding treatment; no diagnostic testing and treating everyone; and not treating anyone. We modeled high-risk 65-year old patients from a health payer perspective and accrued outcomes over a patient's lifetime. We reported health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and net health benefit (NHB) to measure cost-effectiveness per cohort of 100,000 patients. Treating everyone with no prior testing was the most cost-effective strategy, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, in over 85% of simulations. This strategy yielded the highest NHB of 15.0344 QALYs, but inappropriately treats all patients without influenza. Of the novel rapid diagnostics, NAAT resulted in the highest NHB (15.0277 QALYs), and the least number of deaths (1,571 per 100,000). Sensitivity analyses determined that results were most impacted by the pretest probability of ILI being influenza, diagnostic test sensitivity, and treatment effectiveness. Based on our model, treating high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness, without performing a novel rapid diagnostic test, resulted in the highest NHB and was most cost-effective. However, consideration of whether treatment is appropriate in the absence of diagnostic confirmation should be taken into account for decision-making by clinicians and policymakers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of novel rapid diagnostic tests: rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDT), digital immunoassays (DIA), rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), and other treatment algorithms for influenza in high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness (ILI).
METHODS
We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic test strategies (RIDT, DIA, NAAT, clinical judgement, batch polymerase chain reaction) preceding treatment; no diagnostic testing and treating everyone; and not treating anyone. We modeled high-risk 65-year old patients from a health payer perspective and accrued outcomes over a patient's lifetime. We reported health outcomes, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and net health benefit (NHB) to measure cost-effectiveness per cohort of 100,000 patients.
RESULTS
Treating everyone with no prior testing was the most cost-effective strategy, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, in over 85% of simulations. This strategy yielded the highest NHB of 15.0344 QALYs, but inappropriately treats all patients without influenza. Of the novel rapid diagnostics, NAAT resulted in the highest NHB (15.0277 QALYs), and the least number of deaths (1,571 per 100,000). Sensitivity analyses determined that results were most impacted by the pretest probability of ILI being influenza, diagnostic test sensitivity, and treatment effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our model, treating high-risk patients presenting to hospital with influenza-like illness, without performing a novel rapid diagnostic test, resulted in the highest NHB and was most cost-effective. However, consideration of whether treatment is appropriate in the absence of diagnostic confirmation should be taken into account for decision-making by clinicians and policymakers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33196653
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242255
pii: PONE-D-20-15378
pmc: PMC7668582
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0242255Subventions
Organisme : CIHR
ID : GSD-159274
Pays : Canada
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
NKJA co-chaired the WHO Guideline Development Group – Clinical Management of Severe Influenza Infections. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018 Mar;12(2):232-240
pubmed: 29125689
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Jun;34(6):577-82
pubmed: 25973935
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(35):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-170
pubmed: 14609480
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Apr 15;48(8):1003-32
pubmed: 19281331
Eur J Health Econ. 2006 Dec;7(4):290-6
pubmed: 16983521
Pharmacoeconomics. 2020 Aug;38(8):781-784
pubmed: 32390066
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Mar 5;68(6):895-902
pubmed: 30834445
J Clin Virol. 2008 Jun;42(2):124-8
pubmed: 18289930
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Jul;38(1):54-61
pubmed: 19615627
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 27;8(11):e80481
pubmed: 24312225
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7
pubmed: 25162885
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 10;(4):CD008965
pubmed: 24718923
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 13;69(7):1243-1253
pubmed: 30689772
PLoS One. 2010 Jun 23;5(6):e11284
pubmed: 20585642
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2016 Mar;10(2):113-21
pubmed: 26574910
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Sep 19;167(6):394-409
pubmed: 28869986
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2018 Jan;12(1):22-29
pubmed: 29197154
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 20;11(1):e0146620
pubmed: 26788921
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;62(1):80-8
pubmed: 23522607
Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Apr;15(4):369-76
pubmed: 10537955
PLoS One. 2018 Sep 7;13(9):e0202787
pubmed: 30192781
Value Health. 2009 Mar-Apr;12(2):226-33
pubmed: 18671770
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Jun;33(6):770-5
pubmed: 25827595
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
Fam Pract. 2013 Apr;30(2):125-33
pubmed: 22997224
Lancet Respir Med. 2014 May;2(5):395-404
pubmed: 24815805