IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v18y2017i6d10.1007_s10198-016-0824-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients

Author

Listed:
  • L. T. Burgers

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • W. K. Redekop

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • M. J. Al

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • S. K. Lhachimi

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam
    BIPS -Leibniz-Institute für Prevention Research und Epidemiology)

  • N. Armstrong

    (Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)

  • S. Walker

    (University of York)

  • C. Rothery

    (University of York)

  • M. Westwood

    (Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd)

  • J. L. Severens

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam
    Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Aims New generation dual-source coronary CT (NGCCT) scanners with more than 64 slices were evaluated for patients with (known) or suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD) who are difficult to image: obese, coronary calcium score > 400, arrhythmias, previous revascularization, heart rate > 65 beats per minute, and intolerance of betablocker. A cost-effectiveness analysis of NGCCT compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) was performed for these difficult-to-image patients for England and Wales. Methods and results Five models (diagnostic decision model, four Markov models for CAD progression, stroke, radiation and general population) were integrated to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NGCCT for both suspected and known CAD populations. The lifetime costs and effects from the National Health Service perspective were estimated for three strategies: (1) patients diagnosed using ICA, (2) using NGCCT, and (3) patients diagnosed using a combination of NGCCT and, if positive, followed by ICA. In the suspected population, the strategy where patients only undergo a NGCCT is a cost-effective option at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. The strategy of using NGCCT in combination with ICA is the most favourable strategy for patients with known CAD. The most influential factors behind these results are the percentage of patients being misclassified (a function of both diagnostic accuracy and the prior likelihood), the complication rates of the procedures, and the cost price of a NGCCT scan. Conclusion The use of NGCCT might be considered cost-effective in both populations since it is cost-saving compared to ICA and generates similar effects.

Suggested Citation

  • L. T. Burgers & W. K. Redekop & M. J. Al & S. K. Lhachimi & N. Armstrong & S. Walker & C. Rothery & M. Westwood & J. L. Severens, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of new generation coronary CT scanners for difficult-to-image patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 731-742, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0824-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-016-0824-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-016-0824-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-016-0824-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick W. Sullivan & Vahram Ghushchyan, 2006. "Preference-Based EQ-5D Index Scores for Chronic Conditions in the United States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 410-420, July.
    2. Meryl Darlington & Pascal Gueret & Jean-Pierre Laissy & Antoine Pierucci & Hassani Maoulida & Céline Quelen & Ralph Niarra & Gilles Chatellier & Isabelle Durand-Zaleski, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography coronary angiography versus conventional invasive coronary angiography," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 647-655, July.
    3. Louise Longworth & Martin Buxton & Mark Sculpher & David Smith, 2005. "Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 347-353, December.
    4. Paul Kind & Geoffrey Hardman & Susan Macran, 1999. "UK population norms for EQ-5D," Working Papers 172chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    2. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Brazier, JE & Yang, Y & Tsuchiya, A, 2008. "A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures," MPRA Paper 29808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Dina Jankovic & Pedro Saramago Goncalves & Lina Gega & David Marshall & Kath Wright & Meena Hafidh & Rachel Churchill & Laura Bojke, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of Digital Interventions for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Model-Based Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 377-388, May.
    5. Alejandro Arrieta & Timothy F Page & Emir Veledar & Khurram Nasir, 2017. "Economic Evaluation of PCSK9 Inhibitors in Reducing Cardiovascular Risk from Health System and Private Payer Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    7. Carsten Hirt & Sergio Iannazzo & Silvia Chiroli & Lisa J. McGarry & Philipp Coutre & Leif Stenke & Torsten Dahlén & Jeffrey H. Lipton, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of the Third-Generation Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor (TKI) Ponatinib, vs. Second-Generation TKIs or Stem Cell Transplant, as Third-Line Treatment for Chronic-Phase Chronic Myeloid Leuk," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 555-567, August.
    8. Shan Liu & Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2011. "Cost Effectiveness of Fibrosis Assessment Prior to Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis C Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    10. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2016. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(1), pages 8-19, January.
    11. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria & Anju Keetharuth & Arne Risa Hole & Aki Tsuchiya & Sophie Whyte & Phil Shackley, 2016. "Eliciting Societal Preferences for Weighting QALYs for Burden of Illness and End of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 210-222, February.
    12. Mathieu F. Janssen & A. Simon Pickard & James W. Shaw, 2021. "General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(9), pages 1467-1475, December.
    13. Abdullah Pandor & Matt Stevenson & John Stevens & Marrissa Martyn-St James & Jean Hamilton & Jenny Byrne & Claudius Rudin & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong, 2018. "Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 903-915, August.
    14. Stefano Capri, 2013. "The economics of orphan drugs: the case of osteosarcoma treatment," LIUC Papers in Economics 265, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    15. Mehdi Javanbakht & Jesse Fishman & Eoin Moloney & Peter Rydqvist & Amir Ansaripour, 2023. "Early Cost-Effectiveness and Price Threshold Analyses of Resmetirom: An Investigational Treatment for Management of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 93-110, January.
    16. Lisa Meckley & James Gudgeon & Jeffrey Anderson & Marc Williams & David Veenstra, 2010. "A Policy Model to Evaluate the Benefits, Risks and Costs of Warfarin Pharmacogenomic Testing," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 61-74, January.
    17. Nádia Simões & Nuno Crespo & Sandrina B. Moreira & Celeste A. Varum, 2016. "Measurement and determinants of health poverty and richness: evidence from Portugal," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1331-1358, June.
    18. Andrew J. Palmer & Julie A. Campbell & Barbara de Graaff & Nancy Devlin & Hasnat Ahmad & Philip M Clarke & Mingsheng Chen & Lei Si, 2021. "Population norms for quality adjusted life years for the United States of America, China, the United Kingdom and Australia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1950-1977, August.
    19. C. Simone Sutherland & Pollyanna Hudson & Stephen Mitchell & Noman Paracha, 2022. "Systematic Literature Review to Identify Utility Values in Patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and Their Caregivers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 39-67, April.
    20. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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:spr:eujhec:v:18:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-016-0824-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.