Search

Objective. To conduct cost-utility analyses for Computed Tomography To Strength (CT2S), a novel osteoporosis screening service, compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), treat all without screening, and no screening methods for Dutch postmenopausal women referred to fracture liaison service (FLS). CT2S uses CT scans to generate femur models and simulate sideways fall scenarios for bone strength assessment. Methods. Early health technology assessment (HTA) was adopted to evaluate CT2S as a novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention. We constructed a 2-dimensional simulation model considering 4 strategies (no screening, treat all without screening, DXA, CT2S) together with screening intervals (5 y, 2 y), treatments (oral alendronate, zoledronic acid), and discount rate scenarios among Dutch women in 3 age groups (60s, 70s, and 80s). Strategy comparisons were based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), considering an ICER below €20,000 per QALY gained as cost-effective in the Netherlands. Results. Under the base-case scenario, CT2S versus DXA had estimated ICERs of €41,200 and €14,083 per QALY gained for the 60s and 70s age groups, respectively. For the 80s age group, CT2S was more effective and less costly than DXA. Changing treatment from weekly oral alendronate to annual zoledronic acid substantially decreased CT2S versus DXA ICERs across all age groups. Setting the screening interval to 2 y increased CT2S versus DXA ICERs to €100,333, €55,571, and €15,750 per QALY gained for the 60s, 70s, and 80s age groups, respectively. In all simulated populations and scenarios, CT2S was cost-effective (in some cases dominant) compared with the treat all strategy and cost-saving (more effective and less costly) compared with no screening. Conclusion. CT2S was estimated to be potentially cost-effective in the 70s and 80s age groups considering the willingness-to-pay threshold of the Netherlands. This early HTA suggests CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis screening tool for secondary fracture prevention., Highlights: For postmenopausal Dutch women who have been referred to the FLS, direct access to CT2S may be cost-effective compared with DXA for age groups 70s and 80s, when considering the ICER threshold of the Netherlands. This study positions CT2S as a potential novel osteoporosis-screening tool for secondary fracture prevention in the clinical setting.A shorter screening interval of 2 y increases the effectiveness of both screening strategies, but the ICER of CT2S compared with DXA also increased substantially, which made CT2S no longer cost-effective for the 70s age group; however, it remains cost-effective for individuals in their 80s.Annual zoledronic acid treatment with better adherence may contribute to a lower cost-effectiveness ratio when comparing CT2S to DXA screening and the treat all strategies for all age groups., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was also partially supported by the European Commission H2020 program through the CompBioMed Centre of Excellence (grant No. 823712)., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: Mortality rates for patients on hemodialysis (HD) continue to be high, in particular, following the long interdialytic period, yet thrice-weekly conventional HD (CHD) is still an almost universal regimen. Alternate-day dialysis (ADD) may have advantages over the current schedule because it would eliminate the long interdialytic break. A preliminary, as yet unpublished, patient simulation and cost-utility analysis compared CHD versus ADD and demonstrated that the economic attractiveness of ADD was sensitive, in particular, to patients' preference for ADD versus CHD. To date, this preference has not been elicited., Objective: To elicit utilities for both CHD and ADD using 3 standard elicitation methods among a prevalent cohort of patients on CHD., Design: This study is a single-center survey of patient preferences (utilities)., Setting: This study took place within the dialysis units of Sunnybrook Health Centre, a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which encompasses 174 patients on in-center HD., Patients: Those older than 18 years of age, on thrice-weekly HD, were included in this study., Measurements: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics and the utility values generated. A multiple linear regression was performed to determine an association between participant characteristics and the utility ratio., Methods: Via standardized face-to-face interviews by a single investigator, 3 utility elicitation methods, visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG), were administered to generate utilities for each patient for their current health state of CHD (thrice-weekly). After completing this task, we provided each patient with a concise summary regarding the current literature on how ADD may impact their health. Finally, patients were asked to envision their health while on an ADD regimen while repeating the VAS, TTO, and SG., Results: We recruited 65 participants. The mean utilities of CHD versus ADD were similar for all 3 methods. Visual analogue scale, TTO, and SG had utility values of 0.6 ± 0.2, 0.6 ± 0.3, and 0.7 ± 0.3, and 0.6 ± 0.2, 0.7 ± 0.3, and 0.7 ± 0.3 for CHD and ADD, respectively. The ratio for CHD to ADD was 1.1 ± 0.4, 1.1 ± 0.5, and 1.0 ± 0.2 for VAS, TTO, and SG, respectively., Limitations: Small sample size from a single center, where not all participants agreed to participate, wide variability in participant responses and requiring patients to conceptually imagine life on ADD may have affected our results., Conclusions: Compared with CHD, there was no difference in the preference toward ADD which demonstrates promise that adopting an alternate-day schedule may be acceptable to patients. Furthermore, with the generation of a utility for ADD, this will allow for more precise estimates in future simulation studies of the economic attractiveness of ADD., Trial Registration: Not required as this article is not a systematic review nor does it report the results of a health care intervention., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background. Health care performance monitoring is a major focus of the modern quality movement, resulting in widespread development of quality indicators and making prioritizations an increasing focus. Currently, few prioritization methods of performance measurements give serious consideration to the association of performance with expected health benefits and costs. We demonstrate a proof-of-concept application of using a health economic framework to prioritize quality indicators by expected variations in population health and costs, using smoking cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as an example. Methods. We developed a health state transition, microsimulation model to represent smoking cessation practices for adults with COPD from the health care payer perspective in Ontario, Canada. Variations in life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were associated with changes in performance. Incremental net health benefit (INHB) was used to represent the joint variation in mortality, morbidity, and costs associated with the performance of each quality indicator. Results. Using a value threshold of $50,000/QALY, the indicators monitoring assessment of smoking status and smoking cessation interventions were associated with the largest INHBs. Combined performance variations among groups of indicators showed that 81% of the maximum potential INHB could be represented by three out of the six process indicators. Conclusions. A health economic framework can be used to bring dimensions of population health and costs into explicit consideration when prioritizing quality indicators. However, this should not preclude policymakers from considering other dimensions of quality that are not part of this framework., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The role of desmopressin (DDAVP) to prevent or treat rapid serum sodium concentration ([Na]s) correction during hyponatremia management remains unclear., Objective: To assess DDAVP use during the first 48 hours of severe, hypovolemic hyponatremia management. The primary study hypothesis was that the use of DDAVP would slow the rate of [Na]s correction compared with those not receiving DDAVP., Design: A retrospective, observational, comparison study., Setting: A single, Canadian, tertiary center., Patients: All admitted patients referred to the nephrology service for severe, hypovolemic hyponatremia ([Na]s < 125 mmol/L) over a 12-month period from November 2015., Measurements: The primary outcomes measure was the [Na]s after medical management for 48 hours. The length of hospital stay was also measured., Methods: Patients were grouped based on whether they received DDAVP during the first 48 hours of treatment, and [Na]s correction was compared between groups using linear regression. An exploratory, multivariable, linear regression model was used to adjust for diabetes status, active malignancy, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hypertonic saline administration., Results: Twenty-eight patients were identified, with baseline mean [Na]s of 112.7 ± 6.6 mmol/L versus 117 ± 4.3mmol/L ( P = .06) in those receiving (n = 16) and not receiving DDAVP (n = 12), respectively. The DDAVP group had a more rapid [Na]s correction on the first day compared with those not receiving DDAVP, 7.7 ± 3.8 mmol/L/d versus 5.1 ± 2.0 mmol/L/d ( P = .04). On the second day, there was a similar rate of [Na]s correction between groups: 1.3 ± 4.3 mmol/L/d versus 2.6 ± 3.2 mmol/L/d ( P = .39), respectively. Overall, there was no difference in [Na]s correction after 48 hours between those who received DDAVP and those who did not: 121.7 ± 7.5 mmol/L versus 124.8 ± 5.7 mmol/L ( P = .24). Patients who had experienced an overcorrection were successfully treated with DDAVP (n = 5), so that no patient had an ongoing overcorrection by 48 hours., Limitations: The limited sample size and lack of randomization preclude definitive conclusion on the additional benefit of DDAVP to standard care., Conclusion: DDAVP appears to be safe and effective in the management of severe, hypovolemic hyponatremia, associated with similar [Na]s correction to those who did not receive DDAVP after 48 hours, despite an initial more rapid correction. A randomized trial should examine what benefit DDAVP confers in addition to standard care in the management of severe, hypovolemic hyponatremia., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.