Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...

Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ... Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of ...

nihr.ac.uk
10.07.2015 Views

Assessment of cost-effectiveness evidencereinfarction. The assumed gold standard for diagnosis, troponin measured 10 hours after worst symptomsis the most effective, but also the most expensive strategy because patients are admitted to hospital untilresults are available. Presentation biomarkers incur costs and may miss cases due to suboptimal sensitivity(thus worsening outcomes), but save costs by reducing length of hospital stay. We built a model to allowus to analyse the effect of different diagnostic management strategies on these costs and benefits.The decision-analysis model structureThe different diagnostic strategies were applied to a hypothetical cohort of patients attending the ED withsuspected, but not proven, ACS. We assumed that the diagnostic strategy would determine which patientshad MI and that the probability of detecting an MI was determined by the sensitivity of the diagnosticstrategy. We assumed that patients with detected MI would be managed promptly by treatment. Themodel assigned each patient a probability of reinfarction or death depending on their characteristicsand whether or not they had treatment. Each patient then accrued lifetime QALYs and health-care costsaccording to their age, sex, reinfarction and treatment status. Costs were also accrued through measuringbiomarkers, hospital stay for diagnosis, further investigation, treatment and/or reinfarction depending onthe strategy and the patient characteristics. Details of each of these processes are outlined below.PopulationThe population consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients attending the ED with suspected but notproven ACS, i.e. a history compatible with ACS but no diagnostic ECG changes (ST deviation of > 1 mmor T-wave inversion > 3 mm), and who had no major comorbidities requiring inpatient treatment (such asHF or arrhythmia). We ran the diagnostic phase model separately for patients with and without a knownhistory of CAD. Different characteristics were used for the populations with and without known CAD.Each patient entering the model had the following characteristics defined: age, sex, MI present or not,time delay between onset of worst pain and arrival at hospital, and time of day. We estimated populationcharacteristics using data from a large recent trial of point-of-care markers in patients with suspected butnot proved MI, the RATPAC (Randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers)trial. 153 Table 32 shows the population characteristics used in the model.The arrival time of patients is an important factor when considering the optimal cost-effectiveness strategybecause outside the ED medical staff may be available only at certain times of the day to make dispositiondecisions (e.g. ward rounds at specific times of the day). We analysed the arrival times of 2240 patientsfrom the RATPAC trial 153 to estimate the arrival distribution used in the model and the results are shown inTable 33. Patients in the RATPAC trial 153 presented across six hospitals over a 15-month period, so the tableis intended to demonstrate relative differences in arrival rates at different times of the day, rather thanproviding any meaningful estimate of absolute arrival rates at a particular hospital.The results are also shown in the form of a histogram in Figure 34. It can be seen that between midnightand 7 am, there are small numbers of patients. The patients arrive at a faster rate between 7 am and 9 ambut between 9 am and 2 pm is the peak time, which sees the fastest arrival rate of patients. There is a steadydecrease in the patient arrival rate between 2 pm and 6 pm and the finally, patients arrive in a constant slowstream between 6 pm and midnight.Selection of strategiesWe tested several strategies to explore the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. Each potentialstrategy was applied to each patient. The strategy determined:1. what tests each patient received and when2. how long each patient spent in hospital3. what treatments each patient received.82NIHR Journals Library

DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Technology Assessment 2013 Vol. 17 No. 1TABLE 32 Population characteristics from the RATPAC trial 153 used in the modelEstimateDistributionPopulation without known CADMean age (SD), years 53.0 (13.5) SE = 0.30% male 58.1% n/N = 1138/1958MI prevalence 7.0% n/N = 137/1958Median (IQR) time delay (minutes) 132 (80 to 255)Time of day See Table 33Population with known CADMean age (SD), years 65.5 (13.4) SE = 0.82% male 59.5% n/N = 160/269MI prevalence 7.8% n/N = 21/248Median (IQR) time delay (minutes) 101 (67 to 170)Time of day See Table 33IQR, interquartile range; SE, standard errorTABLE 33 Patient arrival rate from the RATPAC trial 153 used in the modelTime periodNo. ofhoursInter-arrival timein minutesArrival rate perhourArrivals in thisperiodCumulativearrivals12 midnight to 7 am 7 2 28 195 1957 am to 9 am 2 0.7 88 175 3709 am to 2 pm 5 0.3 212 1060 14302 pm to 6 pm 4 0.5 118 470 19006 pm to 12 midnight 6 1 57 340 2240300250200Frequency15010050012345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Time in hours since midnightFIGURE 34 Histogram of the patient arrival data.© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013. This work was produced by Goodacre et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of Statefor Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journalsprovided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should beaddressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton SciencePark, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.83

DOI: 10.3310/hta17010 Health Technology Assessment 2013 Vol. 17 No. 1TABLE 32 Population characteristics from the RATPAC trial 153 used in the modelEstimateDistributionPopulation without known CADMean age (SD), years 53.0 (13.5) SE = 0.30% male 58.1% n/N = 1138/1958MI prevalence 7.0% n/N = 137/1958Median (IQR) time delay (minutes) 132 (80 to 255)Time <strong>of</strong> day See Table 33Population with known CADMean age (SD), years 65.5 (13.4) SE = 0.82% male 59.5% n/N = 160/269MI prevalence 7.8% n/N = 21/248Median (IQR) time delay (minutes) 101 (67 to 170)Time <strong>of</strong> day See Table 33IQR, interquartile range; SE, st<strong>and</strong>ard errorTABLE 33 Patient arrival rate from the RATPAC trial 153 used in the modelTime periodNo. <strong>of</strong>hoursInter-arrival timein minutesArrival rate perhourArrivals in thisperiodCumulativearrivals12 midnight to 7 am 7 2 28 195 1957 am to 9 am 2 0.7 88 175 3709 am to 2 pm 5 0.3 212 1060 14302 pm to 6 pm 4 0.5 118 470 19006 pm to 12 midnight 6 1 57 340 2240300250200Frequency15010050012345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Time in hours since midnightFIGURE 34 Histogram <strong>of</strong> the patient arrival data.© Queen’s Printer <strong>and</strong> Controller <strong>of</strong> HMSO 2013. This work was produced by Goodacre et al. under the terms <strong>of</strong> a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary <strong>of</strong> Statefor Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes <strong>of</strong> private research <strong>and</strong> study <strong>and</strong> extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in pr<strong>of</strong>essional journalsprovided that suitable acknowledgement is made <strong>and</strong> the reproduction is not associated with any form <strong>of</strong> advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should beaddressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials <strong>and</strong> Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University <strong>of</strong> Southampton SciencePark, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.83

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!