Identification and characterization of new candidates for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in patients outside of current accepted guidelines

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have identified groups of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Population-based studies have found AAA screening would be cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.5% to 1.0%. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of AAA in patients that fall outside of the current screening guidelines. In addition, we analyzed outcomes of the groups with a prevalence of greater than 1%.

METHODS

Using the TriNetX Analytics Network, several patient cohorts were abstracted with a diagnosis of ruptured or unruptured AAA based on previously identified groups with a potentially high risk for AAA that fall outside of currently accepted screening guidelines. Groups were also stratified by sex. For groups found to have a prevalence of greater than 1%, the unruptured patients were further analyzed for long-term rates of rupture and included male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater. Long-term mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were compared in patients with treated and untreated AAA after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We identified 148,279 patients across the four groups with a prevalence of AAA of greater than 1% with female ever-smokers aged 65 or older being the most prevalent (2.73%). In each of the four groups, the rate of AAA rupture increased every 5 years and all had rupture rates of greater than 1% at 10 years. Meanwhile, controls for each of these four subgroups without a previous AAA diagnosis had rupture rates between 0.090% and 0.013% at 10 years. Those who underwent repair of their AAA had decreased incidence of mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Specifically, male ever-smokers aged 45 to 64 had a significant difference in incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction at 5 years and stroke at 1 and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests male ever-smokers aged 45 to 65, male never-smokers aged 65 to 75, male never-smokers aged greater than 75, and female ever-smokers aged 65 or greater have a more than 1% prevalence of AAA and, therefore, may benefit from screening. Outcomes were significantly worse compared with well-matched controls in these groups.

Cost-effectiveness of a population-based AAA screening program for men over 65 years old in Iran

BACKGROUND

Screening program tend to recognized patients in their early stage and consequently improve health outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening program has been scarcely studied in developing countries. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening program for the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men aged over 65 years in Iran.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model with 11 mutually exclusive health statuses was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a population-based AAA screening program compared with a no-screening strategy. Transitions between the health statuses were simulated by using 3-month cycles. Data for disease transition probabilities and quality of life outcomes were obtained from published literature, and costs were calculated based on the price of medical services in Iran and the examination of the patients' medical records. The outcomes were life-years gained, the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis was conducted for a lifetime horizon from the payer's perspective. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Uncertainty surrounding the model inputs was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of the AAA screening strategy compared with the no-screening strategy was $140 and the mean incremental QALY gain was 0.025 QALY, resulting in an ICER of $5566 ($14,656 PPP) per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay of 1 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($5628) per QALY gained, the probability of the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening was about 50%. However, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, there was about a 95% probability for the AAA screening program to be cost-effective in Iran.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained, a 1-time AAA screening program for men aged over 65 years could not be cost-effective. Nevertheless, at a willingness-to-pay of twice the GDP per capita per QALY gained, the AAA screening program could be cost-effective in Iran. Further, AAA screening in high-risk groups could be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of 1 GDP per capita per QALY gained.

Screening Older Adult Men for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Scoping Review

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a potentially fatal condition predominantly affecting older adult men (60 years or over). Based on evidence, preventative health-care guidelines recommend screening older males for AAA using ultrasound. In attempts to reduce AAA mortality among men, screening has been utilized for early detection in some Western countries including the UK and Sweden. The current scoping review includes 19 empirical studies focusing on AAA screening in men. The findings from these studies highlight benefits and potential harms of male AAA screening. The benefits of AAA screening for men include decreased incidence of AAA rupture, decreased AAA mortality, increased effectiveness of elective AAA repair surgery, and cost-effectiveness. The potential harms of AAA screening included lack of AAA mortality reduction, negative impacts on quality of life, and inconsistent screening eligibility criteria being applied by primary care practitioners. The current scoping review findings are discussed to suggest changes to AAA screening guidelines and improve policy and practice.

Systematic review on abdominal aortic aneurysm screening cost-efficiency and methodological quality assessment

INTRODUCTION

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a silent, progressive disease that can lead to death. It is easily diagnosed with noninvasive methods and its routine treatment has excellent results. This creates an optimal situation for population screening programs. The aim of this paper was to assess results and methodological quality of cost-utility studies on screening versus no screening scenarios for AAA to assess future establishment of new AAA screening programs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITON

A systematic review of efficiency (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility) studies was performed, finally selecting cost-utility studies on AAA screening versus no screening. Papers were selected that dealt with efficiency of screening for AAA according to PICOTS framework and the methodological quality assessed according to the economic evaluation analyses described by Drummond and Caro. Two independent reviewers were involved in the procedure.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Research retrieved 88 studies. From those, 26 showed cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results. Finally, 10 studies had cost-utility results and suited criteria (published in the last 10 years; time-horizon: 10 years or more) for exhaustive analysis. All publications, except one, showed adequate incremental cost-utility ratios according to different national perspectives. Methodological assessment showed some quality limitations, but the majority of items analyzed were favorably answered after applying the questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Confirmation of the cost-utility results in this revision at a national/regional level should be the basis for the implantation of new national screening programs worldwide. The methodological evaluation applied in this revision is crucial for the corresponding future piggy-back trials to assess routine application of national AAA screening programs.

Aortic aneurysm screening using duplex ultrasound: Choosing wisely who to examine

The noninvasive vascular laboratory plays a critical role in screening patients at risk for development of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). One-time duplex ultrasound screening reduces aneurysm-related mortality due to rupture and is cost-effective. Population screening based on AAA risk factors is recommended, as it allows for proactive, elective repair of aneurysms at risk for rupture, and surveillance of smaller aneurysms for enlargement. Utilization of societal screening guidelines, such as those published by the Society for Vascular Surgery, can be employed by vascular laboratories to justify individual patient screening, aid primary care physicians to refer patients for testing, and encourage integrated medical health care systems to build prompts in patient electronic health records to ensure compliance with a AAA screening program. Risk factors for developing AAA, that is, age older than 65 years, male sex, family history, and a smoking history of >100 cigarettes, should be used to recommend patient screening, including for women and other elderly (older than 75 years) patients who fall outside of professional societal guidelines.

Evaluating the prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States through a national screening database

OBJECTIVE

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening are based mainly on studies of older Caucasian males from non-U.S.

POPULATIONS

This study was designed to analyze the findings of a large, all-inclusive AAA screening program in the United States.

METHODS

Screening events were held nationally by a U.S. nonprofit organization between 2001 and 2017. AAA screening was offered regardless of risk profile. Participants filled out a demographics form with known comorbidities. Significant risk factors were determined using logistic regression with backward stepwise variable selection. Odds ratios (OR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 9457 screened participants (47% male) were analyzed. The mean age was 67 ± 9 years with 40.8% between 65 and 75 years old. Most participants were Caucasian (83.4%), followed by African American (13.1%). Screened risk factors included hypertension (58.1%), hyperlipidemia (54.9%), smoking (52.0%), cardiac disease (29.2%), diabetes mellitus (18.4%), a family history of AAA (22.4%) or brain aneurysms (8.6%), and body mass index (26.9 ± 5.28). Overall, 267 participants (2.82%) were found to have an AAA (>3 cm). Those ages 65 to 75 had a prevalence of 2.98%. In a fully adjusted, multivariate logistic regression, there was an increased risk of AAA in males (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.39-4.40), current smokers (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.36-4.54), previous smokers (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.41-2.47), cardiac disease (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.68), family history of AAA (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.14), and advancing age (P < .0001). Female ever smokers 65 to 75 years old had a prevalence of 1.7%. Male smokers 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 years old had a prevalence of 3.37% and 4.43%, respectively. There was an increased risk of AAA in females with morbid obesity (OR, 5.54; 95% CI, 1.34-22.83 in never smokers and OR, 5.61; 95% CI, 1.04-30.15 in smokers), female smokers with hypertension (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.21-8.58), males with cardiac disease (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.08-3.90 in never smokers and OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.09), male smokers with a family history of AAA (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.61-2.46), and current smokers (OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.62-15.24 for females and OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.70-3.65 for males).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that there remain high-risk groups outside the current guidelines that would likely benefit from AAA screening. Risk factors for AAA include male gender, smoking, cardiac disease, family history of AAA, and advancing age. The most significant risk factor is current smoking status.

Ranking Preventive Interventions from Different Policy Domains: What Are the Most Cost-Effective Ways to Improve Public Health?

It is widely acknowledged that in order to promote public health and prevent diseases, a wide range of scientific disciplines and sectors beyond the health sector need to be involved. Evidence-based interventions, beyond preventive health interventions targeting disease risk factors and interventions from other sectors, should be developed and implemented. Investing in these preventive health policies is challenging as budgets have to compete with other governmental expenditures. The current study aimed to identify, compare and rank cost-effective preventive interventions targeting metabolic, environmental, occupational and behavioral risk factors. To identify these interventions, a literature search was performed including original full economic evaluations of Western country interventions that had not yet been implemented in the Netherlands. Several workshops were held with experts from different disciplines. In total, 51 different interventions (including 13 cost saving interventions) were identified and ranked based on their incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and potential averted disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), resulting in two rankings of the most cost-effective interventions and one ranking of the 13 cost saving interventions. This approach, resulting in an intersectoral ranking, can assist policy makers in implementing cost-effective preventive action that considers not only the health sector, but also other sectors.

Health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of a population-based screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture carries a high fatality rate. AAAs can be detected before rupture by abdominal ultrasound imaging, allowing elective repair. Population-based screening for AAA in older men reduces AAA-related mortality by about 40 per cent. The UK began an AAA screening programme offering one-off scans to men aged 65 years in 2009. Sweden has a similar programme. Currently, there is no AAA screening programme in New Zealand. This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a UK-style screening programme in the New Zealand setting.

METHODS

The analysis compared a formal AAA screening programme (one-off abdominal ultrasound imaging for about 20 000 men aged 65 years in 2011) with no systematic screening. A Markov macrosimulation model was adapted to estimate the health gains (in quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs), health system costs and cost-effectiveness in New Zealand. A health system perspective and lifetime horizon was adopted.

RESULTS

With New Zealand-specific inputs, the adapted model produced an estimate of about NZ $15 300 (€7746) per QALY gained, with a 95 per cent uncertainty interval (UI) of NZ $8700 to 31 000 (€4405 to 15 694) per QALY gained. Health gains were estimated at 117 (95 per cent UI 53 to 212) QALYs. Health system costs were NZ $1·68 million (€850 535), with a 95 per cent UI of NZ $820 200 to 3·24 million (€415 243 to €1·65 million).

CONCLUSION

Using New Zealand's gross domestic product per capita (about NZ $45 000 or €22 100) as a cost-effectiveness threshold, a UK-style AAA screening programme would be cost-effective in New Zealand.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in siblings

Background

Population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in 65‐year‐old men has been shown to be cost‐effective. A risk group with higher prevalence is siblings of patients with an AAA. This health economic model‐based study evaluated the potential cost‐effectiveness of targeted AAA screening of siblings.

Methods

A Markov model validated against other screening programmes was used. Two methods of identifying siblings were analysed: direct questioning of patients with an AAA (method A), and employing a national multigeneration register (method B). The prevalence was based on observed ultrasound data on AAAs in siblings. Additional parameters were extracted from RCTs, vascular registers, literature and ongoing screening. The outcome was cost‐effectiveness, probability of cost‐effectiveness at different willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) thresholds, reduction in AAA death, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) gained and total costs on a national scale.

Results

Methods A and B were estimated to reduce mortality from AAA, at incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of €7800 (95 per cent c.i. 4627 to 12 982) and €7666 (5000 to 13 373) per QALY respectively. The probability of cost‐effectiveness was 99 per cent at a WTP of €23 000. The absolute risk reduction in AAA deaths was five per 1000 invited. QALYs gained were 27 per 1000 invited. In a population of ten million, methods A and B were estimated to prevent 12 and 17 AAA deaths, among 2418 and 3572 siblings identified annually, at total costs of €499 500 and €728 700 respectively.

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that aneurysm‐related mortality could be decreased cost‐effectively by applying a targeted screening method for siblings of patients with an AAA.

Risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among male and female relatives of AAA patients

Sex affects the presentation, treatment, and outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Although AAAs are less prevalent in women, at least in the general population, women with an AAA have a poorer prognosis in comparison to men. Sex differences in the genetic predisposition for aneurysm disease remain to be established. In this study we investigated the familial risk of AAA for women compared to men. All living AAA patients included in a 2004-2012 prospective database were invited to the multidisciplinary vascular/genetics outpatient clinic between 2009 and 2012 for assessment of family history using detailed questionnaires. AAA risk for male and female relatives was calculated separately and stratified by sex of the AAA patients. Families of 568 AAA patients were investigated and 22.5% of the patients had at least one affected relative. Female relatives had a 2.8-fold and male relatives had a 1.7-fold higher risk than the estimated sex-specific population risk. Relatives of female AAA patients had a higher aneurysm risk than relatives of male patients (9.0 vs 5.9%, p = 0.022), corresponding to 5.5- and 2.0-fold increases in aneurysm risk in the female and male relatives, respectively. The risk for aortic aneurysm in relatives of AAA patients is higher than expected from population risk. The excess risk is highest for the female relatives of AAA patients and for the relatives of female AAA patients. These findings endorse targeted AAA family screening for female and male relatives of all AAA patients.

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Combination with Medical Intervention in Patients with Small Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among 65 year old men has been proven cost-effective, but nowadays is conducted partly under new conditions. The prevalence of AAA has decreased, and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the predominant surgical method for AAA repair in many centers. At the Malmö Vascular Center pharmacological secondary prevention with statins, antiplatelet therapy, and blood pressure reduction is initiated and given to all patients with AAA. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening under the above mentioned conditions.

METHODS

This was a Markov cohort simulation. A total of 4,300 65 year old men were invited to annual AAA screening; the attendance rate was 78.3% and AAA prevalence was 1.8%. A Markov model with 11 health states was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of AAA screening. Background data on rupture risks, costs, and effectiveness of surgical interventions were obtained from the participating unit, the national Swedvasc Registry, and from the scientific literature.

RESULTS

The additional costs of the screening strategy compared with no screening were €169 per person and year. The incremental health gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.011 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €15710 per QALY. Assuming a 10% reduction of all cause mortality, the incremental cost of screening was €175 per person and year. The gain per subject in the screened cohort was 0.013 additional QALYs, corresponding to an ICER of €13922 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: AAA screening remains cost-effective according to both the Swedish recommendations and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the new era of lower AAA prevalence, EVAR as the predominant surgical method, and secondary prevention for all AAA patients.

Calculating when elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair improves survival for individual patients: development of the Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair aims to prevent premature death from AAA rupture. Elective repair is currently recommended when AAA diameter reaches 5.5 cm (men) and 5.0 cm (women). Applying population-based indications may not be appropriate for individual patient decisions, as the optimal indication is likely to differ between patients based on age and comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an Aneurysm Repair Decision Aid (ARDA) to indicate when elective AAA repair optimises survival for individual patients and to assess the cost-effectiveness and associated uncertainty of elective repair at the aneurysm diameter recommended by the ARDA compared with current practice.

DATA SOURCES

The UK Vascular Governance North West and National Vascular Database provided individual patient data to develop predictive models for perioperative mortality and survival. Data from published literature were used to model AAA growth and risk of rupture. The cost-effectiveness analysis used data from published literature and from local and national databases.

METHODS

A combination of systematic review methods and clinical registries were used to provide data to populate models and inform the structure of the ARDA. Discrete event simulation (DES) was used to model the patient journey from diagnosis to death and synthesised data were used to estimate patient outcomes and costs for elective repair at alternative aneurysm diameters. Eight patient clinical scenarios (vignettes) were used as exemplars. The DES structure was validated by clinical and statistical experts. The economic evaluation estimated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the NHS, social care provider and patient perspective over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness acceptability analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the data and the value for money of ARDA-based decisions. The ARDA outcome measures include perioperative mortality risk, annual risk of rupture, 1-, 5- and 10-year survival, postoperative long-term survival, median life expectancy and predicted time to current threshold for aneurysm repair. The primary economic measure was the ICER using the QALY as the measure of health benefit.

RESULTS

The analysis demonstrated it is feasible to build and run a complex clinical decision aid using DES. The model results support current guidelines for most vignettes but suggest that earlier repair may be effective in younger, fitter patients and ongoing surveillance may be effective in elderly patients with comorbidities. The model adds information to support decisions for patients with aneurysms outside current indications. The economic evaluation suggests that using the ARDA compared with current guidelines could be cost-effective but there is a high level of uncertainty.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of high-quality long-term data to populate all sections of the model meant that there is high uncertainty about the long-term clinical and economic consequences of repair. Modelling assumptions were necessary and the developed survival models require external validation.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARDA provides detailed information on the potential consequences of AAA repair or a decision not to repair that may be helpful to vascular surgeons and their patients in reaching informed decisions. Further research is required to reduce uncertainty about key data, including reintervention following AAA repair, and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the ARDA for use in routine clinical practice.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

[Economic evaluation studies in diagnostic imaging: justification and critical reading]

First, this article describes the concepts and tools most widely used for economic evaluation in healthcare. Second, it discusses some elements that must be taken into account in the social decision about how much we are willing to spend to prolong a person's life by one year. Third, it describes the criteria recommended for the critical analysis of publications that evaluate the economic aspects of health interventions. Finally, several studies about ultrasound screening for aneurysms of the abdominal aorta are used as illustrative examples to show how these elements and criteria can be applied.

Baseline prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease and hypertension in men aged 65–74 years from a population screening study (VIVA trial)

Background

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening has been introduced into some health systems and could easily be supplemented with broader vascular screening. The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening set-up and investigate combined screening for AAA, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and possible hypertension (HT), and detection rates.

Methods

This observational study was based on the intervention arm of a screening trial in 25 083 Danish men aged 65–74 years. A combined screening programme for AAA, PAD and HT was offered at local hospitals. Participants with positive test results were offered secondary prophylaxis and/or referred to their general practitioner. The programme set-up included decentralized screening by three mobile teams at 14 venues. Diagnostic criteria were: aortic diameter at least 30 mm for AAA, ankle : brachial pressure index below 0·9 or above 1·4 for PAD, and BP exceeding 160/100 mmHg for HT.

Results

Overall, 18 749 men (uptake 74·7 per cent) attended the screening. An AAA was diagnosed in 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 3·0 to 3·6) per cent, PAD in 10·9 (10·5 to 11·4) per cent and HT in 10·5 (10·0 to 10·9) per cent. Lipid-lowering and/or antiplatelet treatment was initiated in 34·8 per cent of the participants.

Conclusion

Preventive actions were started in one-third of the attenders. The long-term effect of this on morbidity and mortality is an important part of future analysis. The trial confirms that the prevalence of AAA in Denmark has decreased only slightly in the past decade, from 4·0 to 3·3 per cent, in contrast to other nations.

Cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme in England

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the National Health Service abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) for men aged 65 years began in England in 2009. An important element of the evidence base supporting its introduction was the economic modelling of the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening, which was based mainly on 4-year follow-up data from the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial. Concern has been expressed about whether this conclusion of cost-effectiveness still holds, given the early performance parameters, particularly the lower prevalence of AAA observed in NAAASP.

METHODS

The existing published model was adjusted and updated to reflect the current best evidence. It was recalibrated to mirror the 10-year follow-up data from MASS; the main cost parameters were re-estimated to reflect current practice; and more robust estimates of AAA growth and rupture rates from recent meta-analyses were incorporated, as were key parameters as observed in NAAASP (attendance rates, AAA prevalence and size distributions).

RESULTS

The revised and updated model produced estimates of the long-term incremental cost-effectiveness of £5758 (95 per cent confidence interval £4285 to £7410) per life-year gained, or £7370 (£5467 to £9443) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

Although the updated parameters, particularly the increased costs and lower AAA prevalence, have increased the cost per QALY, the latest modelling provides evidence that AAA screening as now being implemented in England is still highly cost-effective.

Current status of medical treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Although cardiovascular disease is widely recognized as the leading cause of death, a lesser known fact is that aortic aneurysm is the 15th leading cause of death over the age of 65 years in the USA. The golden standard of the treatments are invasive interventions either with open surgical repair (OS) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The concept of medical treatment is to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from rupture and avoid surgical treatment by preventing aneurysm enlargement or even reducing aneurysm size. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) are structurally related metalloendopeptidases that can degrade the extracellular matrix and is thought to play important roles in AAA. There are many proposed pharmacological treatments including: β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), statins, macrolides and, doxycycline, an inhibitor of the MMP. The latter is a potential promising drug as medical treatment for AAA and the Non-invasive Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Clinical Trial (N-TA(3)CT) is currently ongoing in the USA. Here, the pathophysiology and potential medical therapy for AAA will be reviewed.

Cost effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and rescreening in men in a modern context: evaluation of a hypothetical cohort using a decision analytical model

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men, from the perspective of a national health service.

SETTING

Screening units at regional hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypothetical cohort of 65 year old men from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs (£ in 2010) and effect on health outcomes (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)).

RESULTS

Screening seems to be highly cost effective compared with not screening. The model estimated a 92% probability that some form of screening would be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 (€24,790; $31,460). If men with an aortic diameter of 25-29 mm at the initial screening were rescreened once after five years, 452 men per 100,000 initially screened would benefit from early detection, whereas lifetime rescreening every five years would detect 794 men per 100,000. We estimated the associated incremental cost effectiveness ratios for rescreening once and lifetime rescreening to be £10,013 and £29,680 per QALY, respectively. The individual probability of being the most cost effective strategy was higher for each rescreening strategy than for the screening once strategy (in view of the £20,000 threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the cost effectiveness of screening versus no screening and lends further support to considerations of rescreening men at least once for abdominal aortic aneurysm.