IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v26y2006i3p282-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Celiac Disease in the Adult Population

Author

Listed:
  • Raanan Shamir

    (Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Meyer Children’s Hospital, Haifa, and the Bruce Rappaport School of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel)

  • Olle Hernell

    (Department of Clinical Sciences, Pediatrics, Umeå University, S-901 85 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Moshe Leshno

    (Faculty of Management and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, leshnom@post.tau.ac.il)

Abstract

Background . Celiac disease (CD) is common and, when undiagnosed, may result in increased mortality, suggesting that mass screening could be justified. The authors examined the cost-effectiveness (CE) of such an approach, assuming a higher mortality rate in undiagnosed CD and that adhering to a gluten-free diet (GFD) reduces the mortality rate. Methods . The authors developed a state transition Markov model, evaluating the CE of screening an entire population at the age of 18. Screening strategies included no screening v. screening by IgA antiendomysial antibodies (EMA), IgA human antitissue transglutaminase antibodies (TTG), and TTG verified by EMA. All strategies were examined with and without evaluation for IgA deficiency, and they all included an intestinal biopsy. Effects of variables were examined using sensitivity analysis. Effectiveness was assessed by life expectancy for each strategy and the incremental average CE ratio for each. Results . Base-case analysis revealed US$49,491 and US$572,616 per life year gained for screening compared to no screening using EMA or TTG, respectively. The CE of screening with EMA was most influenced by the prevalence of CD and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) for untreated CD patients. Screening was cost-effective in populations with a relatively high prevalence of CD or when the SMR for untreated CD patients was higher than 1.5. The model was insensitive to changes in the cost of serological markers and diagnostic endoscopy. Conclusion . Assuming an SMR of 1.5 or higher for untreated CD patients, mass screening for CD is cost-effective in populations with a relatively high prevalence of CD over a wide range of ages at screening. From a CE perspective, EMA is the preferred serological marker for mass screening. Screening for CD would be justified only if the uncertainties regarding the validity of our assumptions are substantiated.

Suggested Citation

  • Raanan Shamir & Olle Hernell & Moshe Leshno, 2006. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Celiac Disease in the Adult Population," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(3), pages 282-293, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:282-293
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06289012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06289012
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06289012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), 2000. "Handbook of Health Economics," Handbook of Health Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leyla Mohseninejad & Talitha Feenstra & Henriëtte Horst & Hèlen Woutersen-Koch & Erik Buskens, 2013. "Targeted screening for Coeliac Disease among irritable bowel syndrome patients: analysis of cost-effectiveness and value of information," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(6), pages 947-957, December.
    2. Xin Sun & Thomas Faunce, 2008. "Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(4), pages 313-323, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baltagi, Badi H. & Yen, Yin-Fang, 2014. "Hospital treatment rates and spillover effects: Does ownership matter?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 193-202.
    2. G�ng�r KARAKAYA, 2009. "Long-Term Care: Regional Disparities In Belgium," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 4(1(7)_ Spr).
    3. Kai Hong & Peter A. Savelyev & Kegon T. K. Tan, 2020. "Understanding the Mechanisms Linking College Education with Longevity," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(3), pages 371-400.
    4. Erik Schokkaert & Jonas Steel & Carine Van de Voorde, 2017. "Out-of-Pocket Payments and Subjective Unmet Need of Healthcare," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 545-555, October.
    5. Masayoshi Hayashi, 2011. "The effects of medical factors on transfer deficits in Public Assistance in Japan: a quantile regression analysis," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 287-307, December.
    6. James M. Malcomson, 2005. "Supplier Discretion Over Provision: Theory and an Application to Medical Care," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(2), pages 412-429, Summer.
    7. Abe Dunn & Eli Liebman & Adam Hale Shapiro, 2016. "Decomposing Medical Care Expenditure Growth," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Modeling Health Care Costs, pages 81-111, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Martin Gaynor, "undated". "What Do We Know About Competition and Quality in Health Care Markets?," GSIA Working Papers 2006-E62, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    9. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Seabury, Seth A., 2012. "The welfare effects of medical malpractice liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 356-369.
    10. Jeffrey Clemens & Joshua D. Gottlieb & Jeffrey Hicks, 2021. "How Would Medicare for All Affect Health System Capacity? Evidence from Medicare for Some," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 225-262.
    11. Carl Lyttkens, 2009. "Why the econometrician is in good spirits: a workshop through the looking glass," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 10(3), pages 239-242, July.
    12. Philip Oreopoulos & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2009. "How large are returns to schooling? Hint: Money isn't everything," NBER Working Papers 15339, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Tor Iversen & Ching-to Ma, 2011. "Market conditions and general practitioners’ referrals," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 245-265, December.
    14. Jasmin Kantarevic & Boris Kralj, 2016. "Physician Payment Contracts in the Presence of Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection: The Theory and Its Application in Ontario," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(10), pages 1326-1340, October.
    15. Lorenz Kueng & Evgeny Yakovlev, 2016. "Long-Run Effects of Public Policies: Endogenous Alcohol Preferences and Life Expectancy in Russia," Working Papers w0219, New Economic School (NES).
    16. Ayyagari Padmaja & Sindelar Jody L, 2010. "The Impact of Job Stress on Smoking and Quitting: Evidence from the HRS," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-32, March.
    17. Hernández-Quevedo, Cristina & Jones, Andrew M. & Rice, Nigel, 2008. "Persistence in health limitations: A European comparative analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 1472-1488, December.
    18. Ciccarelli, Carlo & Giamboni, Luigi & Waldmann, Robert, 2007. "Cigarette smoking, pregnancy, forward looking behavior and dynamic inconsistency," MPRA Paper 8878, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Maite Blázquez Cuesta & Elena Cottini & Herrarte, A. (Ainhoa), 2012. "GINI DP 39: Socioeconomic Gradient in Health: How Important is Material Deprivation?," GINI Discussion Papers 39, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    20. Bernard Friedman & H. Jiang, 2010. "Do Medicare Advantage enrollees tend to be admitted to hospitals with better or worse outcomes compared with fee-for-service enrollees?," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-185, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:26:y:2006:i:3:p:282-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.