Cost-effectiveness of a population-based AAA screening program for men over 65 years old in Iran.
Abdominal aortic aneurysm
Cost-effectiveness
Endovascular aneurysm repair
Open surgical repair
Screening
Journal
Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E
ISSN: 1478-7547
Titre abrégé: Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 May 2021
13 May 2021
Historique:
received:
03
07
2020
accepted:
05
05
2021
entrez:
14
5
2021
pubmed:
15
5
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Screening program tend to recognized patients in their early stage and consequently improve health outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening program has been scarcely studied in developing countries. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening program for the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men aged over 65 years in Iran. A Markov cohort model with 11 mutually exclusive health statuses was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based AAA screening program compared with a no-screening strategy. Transitions between the health statuses were simulated by using 3-month cycles. Data for disease transition probabilities and quality of life outcomes were obtained from published literature, and costs were calculated based on the price of medical services in Iran and the examination of the patients' medical records. The outcomes were life-years gained, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis was conducted for a lifetime horizon from the payer's perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Uncertainty surrounding the model inputs was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The mean incremental cost of the AAA screening strategy compared with the no-screening strategy was $140 and the mean incremental QALY gain was 0.025 QALY, resulting in an ICER of $5566 ($14,656 PPP) per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay of 1 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($5628) per QALY gained, the probability of the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening was about 50%. However, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, there was about a 95% probability for the AAA screening program to be cost-effective in Iran. The results of this study showed that at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained, a 1-time AAA screening program for men aged over 65 years could not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, the AAA screening program could be cost-effective in Iran. Further, AAA screening in high-risk groups could be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Screening program tend to recognized patients in their early stage and consequently improve health outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening program has been scarcely studied in developing countries. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening program for the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men aged over 65 years in Iran.
METHODS
METHODS
A Markov cohort model with 11 mutually exclusive health statuses was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based AAA screening program compared with a no-screening strategy. Transitions between the health statuses were simulated by using 3-month cycles. Data for disease transition probabilities and quality of life outcomes were obtained from published literature, and costs were calculated based on the price of medical services in Iran and the examination of the patients' medical records. The outcomes were life-years gained, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis was conducted for a lifetime horizon from the payer's perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Uncertainty surrounding the model inputs was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean incremental cost of the AAA screening strategy compared with the no-screening strategy was $140 and the mean incremental QALY gain was 0.025 QALY, resulting in an ICER of $5566 ($14,656 PPP) per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay of 1 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($5628) per QALY gained, the probability of the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening was about 50%. However, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, there was about a 95% probability for the AAA screening program to be cost-effective in Iran.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study showed that at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained, a 1-time AAA screening program for men aged over 65 years could not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, the AAA screening program could be cost-effective in Iran. Further, AAA screening in high-risk groups could be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33985531
doi: 10.1186/s12962-021-00283-7
pii: 10.1186/s12962-021-00283-7
pmc: PMC8120703
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
29Références
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996 Aug;16(8):963-70
pubmed: 8696960
JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2219-2238
pubmed: 31821436
J Vasc Surg. 2005 May;41(5):741-51; discussion 751
pubmed: 15886653
Br J Surg. 2013 Mar;100(4):448-55
pubmed: 23254440
N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov 22;367(21):1988-97
pubmed: 23171095
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1998 Sep;80(5):341-2
pubmed: 9849335
Lancet. 2002 Nov 16;360(9345):1531-9
pubmed: 12443589
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 20;362(20):1881-9
pubmed: 20484396
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005 Oct;18(4):345-67
pubmed: 16252027
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 08;(4):CD001835
pubmed: 18843626
J Med Screen. 2004;11(1):50-3
pubmed: 15006116
Asian J Surg. 2019 Oct;42(10):899-906
pubmed: 30914154
Angiology. 2008 Oct-Nov;59(5):559-66
pubmed: 18818237
Thromb Res. 2013 Feb;131(2):e51-3
pubmed: 23260442
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Sep;17(41):1-118
pubmed: 24067626
Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991 Feb;5(1):53-7
pubmed: 2009986
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009 Dec;38(6):748-9
pubmed: 19666232
Ann Vasc Surg. 2012 Feb;26(2):166-74
pubmed: 22037143
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Jun;51(6):766-73
pubmed: 26952345
Iran J Radiol. 2016 Jan 21;13(1):e16021
pubmed: 27110330
Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991 Apr;5(2):141-4
pubmed: 2037085
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 10;170(2):e38-40
pubmed: 24210419
Lancet. 2016 Jan 2;387(10013):29-30
pubmed: 26766344
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012 Feb;43(2):161-6
pubmed: 22178251
Value Health Reg Issues. 2020 Sep;22:1-6
pubmed: 31677427
Lancet. 2019 May 11;393(10184):1984-2005
pubmed: 31043324
J Med Screen. 2004;11(2):93-6
pubmed: 15153325
Br J Surg. 2012 Jan;99(1):73-7
pubmed: 21928466
BMJ. 2004 May 8;328(7448):1122-4
pubmed: 15130983
Br J Surg. 2011 Nov;98(11):1546-55
pubmed: 21725968
N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 14;351(16):1607-18
pubmed: 15483279
Arch Iran Med. 2009 Jul;12(4):383-8
pubmed: 19566356
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011 Jan;41 Suppl 1:S1-S58
pubmed: 21215940
J Med Screen. 2007;14(1):46-52
pubmed: 17362572
Br J Surg. 2019 Apr;106(5):523-533
pubmed: 30883709
BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):750
pubmed: 15757960
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014 Apr;47(4):357-65
pubmed: 24485841
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Aug 19;161(4):281-90
pubmed: 24957320
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 02;8(12):e81260
pubmed: 24312543
Br J Surg. 2005 Aug;92(8):976-83
pubmed: 16034844
Br J Surg. 2014 Jul;101(8):976-82
pubmed: 24862963
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 Mar;45(3):231-4
pubmed: 23332307
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Feb;8(2):92-102
pubmed: 21079638
Vascular. 2008 Jul-Aug;16(4):201-6
pubmed: 18845100
Glob Heart. 2014 Mar;9(1):159-70
pubmed: 25432125
BMJ. 2004 Nov 27;329(7477):1259
pubmed: 15545293
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Feb;39(2):208-16
pubmed: 19942460
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008 Apr;35(4):413-9
pubmed: 18063394
JAMA. 2019 Dec 10;322(22):2211-2218
pubmed: 31821437
Echocardiography. 2007 Aug;24(7):685-8
pubmed: 17651096
JAMA. 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1535-42
pubmed: 19826022