Economic Evaluation of Strategies to Reduce Sudden Cardiac Death in Young Athletes
National Institute of Mental Health, 6001 Executive Blvd, Room 8225 MSC 9669, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. PEDIATRICS
(Impact Factor: 5.47).
07/2012; 130(2):e380-9. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-3241
There is controversy about appropriate methods to reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young athletes, but there is limited evidence on costs or consequences of alternative strategies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding electrocardiogram (ECG) screening to the currently standard practice of preparticipation history and physical examination (H&P) to reduce SCD.
Decision analysis modeling by using a societal perspective, with annual Markov cycles from age 14 until death. Three screening strategies were evaluated: (1) H&P, with cardiology referral if abnormal (current standard practice); (2) H&P, plus ECG after negative H&P, and cardiology referral if either is abnormal; and (3) ECG only, with cardiology referral if abnormal. Children identified with SCD-associated cardiac abnormalities were restricted from sports and received cardiac treatment. Main outcome measures were costs of screening and treatment, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and premature deaths averted.
Relative to strategy 1, incremental cost-effectiveness is $68800/QALY for strategy 2 and $37700/QALY for strategy 3. Monte Carlo simulation revealed the chance of incremental cost-effectiveness compared with strategy 1 was 30% for strategy 2 and 66% for strategy 3 (assumed willingness to pay ≤$50000/QALY). Compared with strategy 1, strategy 2 averted 131 additional SCDs at $900000 per case, and strategy 3 averted 127 SCDs at $600000 per case.
Under a societal willingness to pay threshold of $50000/QALY, adding ECGs to current preparticipation evaluations for athletes is not cost-effective, with costs driven largely by false-positive findings.
Available from: Christian Brettschneider
- "There are different rules of thumb to classify incremental cost per QALY ratios. We employed a widely used , , ,  threshold of 50,000 US-$ PPP per QALY to distinguish cost-effective from economically unfavourable interventions. In the discussion section we additionally use a threshold of 129,090 US-$ PPP per QALY. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
The borderline personality disorder is a common mental disorder. It is frequently associated with various mental co-morbidities and a fundamental loss of functioning. The borderline personality disorder causes high costs to society. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review of existing economic evaluations of treatments for borderline personality disorder.
Materials and Methods
We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and NHSEED for partial and full economic evaluations regarding borderline personality disorder. Reported cost data were inflated to the year 2012 and converted into US-$ using purchasing power parities to allow for comparability. Quality assessment of the studies was performed by means of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist, a checklist developed by a Delphi method in cooperation with 23 international experts.
We identified 6 partial and 9 full economic evaluations. The methodical quality was moderate (fulfilled quality criteria: 79.2% [SD: 15.4%] in partial economic evaluations, 77.3% [SD: 8.5%] in full economic evaluations). Most evaluations analysed psychotherapeutic interventions. Although ambiguous, most evidence exists on dialectical-behavioural therapy. Cognitive behavioural therapy and schema-focused therapy are cost-saving. Evidence on other interventions is scarce.
The economic evidence is not sufficient to draw robust conclusions for all treatments. It is possible that some treatments are cost-effective. Most evidence exists on dialectical-behavioural therapy. Yet, it is ambiguous. Further research concerning the cost-effectiveness of treatments is necessary as well as the identification of relevant cost categories and the validation of effect measures.
Available from: bjsm.bmj.com
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.