Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review

Reducing reflex first-line prescriptions in a surgical pathology laboratory: toward sustainable practice with positive economic and clinical effects

In surgical pathology departments, reflex first-line techniques (RFLTs) are aimed at reducing workloads and addressing recent shortages of medical personnel. However, the impacts thereof on economic and diagnostic factors have been poorly addressed. Also, in the era of global warming, environmental considerations are crucial. This study assessed the economic and diagnostic efficacies of routine pathological RFLT and the quality of care and sustainability. Ten RFLTs of the Bordeaux University Hospital pathology department (six special stains, one cytology technique, and three immunohistochemical tests) were studied. First, a retrospective economic analysis evaluated the average cost of these RFLTs per slide and per year. Second, diagnostic relevance was prospectively surveyed. Third, the effects of changes made were analyzed over 2 years. The ten RFLTs were associated with average annual costs of €46,708. Diagnostic relevance analysis indicated that most stains were unnecessary; only 17% were requested as second-line techniques. Elimination of 7/10 tests afforded annual cost savings of €22,522 and reduced the workload by 5568 tests/year, without compromising the workflow or diagnostic quality. Seven of ten RFLTs could be eliminated without compromising diagnostic quality or the workflow. This afforded not only financial benefits but also positive social and environmental impacts. We offer valuable insights into appropriate practices in surgical pathology laboratories. Collaboration between the medical and technical teams was crucial; other healthcare sectors would also benefit from our approach.

Clinical utility - Information about the usefulness of tests

The clinical utility of a diagnostic test refers to its usefulness in improving patient outcomes, informing clinical decision-making, and optimizing healthcare resources. A diagnostic test with high clinical utility provides accurate, reliable, and actionable information that can guide appropriate treatment decisions, monitor treatment response, and identify potential adverse events or complications. Ultimately, the clinical utility of a diagnostic test depends on how well it can improve patient outcomes by guiding appropriate treatment decisions, improving clinical outcomes, and optimizing healthcare resource utilization. Healthcare providers need to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of using a particular diagnostic test in their clinical practice to determine its clinical utility.

Health-Economic Analyses of Diagnostics: Guidance on Design and Reporting

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can be used to assess the value of diagnostics in clinical practice. Due to the introduction of the European in vitro diagnostic and medical devices regulations, more clinical data on new diagnostics may become available, which may improve the interest and feasibility of performing CEAs. We present eight recommendations on the reporting and design of CEAs of diagnostics. The symptoms patients experience, the clinical setting, locations of test sampling and analysis, and diagnostic algorithms should be clearly reported. The used time horizon should reflect the time horizon used to model the treatment after the diagnostic pathway. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) should be used as the clinical outcomes but may be combined with other relevant outcomes, such as real options value. If the number of tests using the same equipment can vary, the economy of scale should be considered. An understandable graphical representation of the various diagnostic algorithms should be provided to understand the results, such as an efficiency frontier. Finally, the budget impact and affordability should be considered. These recommendations can be used in addition to other, more general, recommendations, such as the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) or the reference case for economic evaluation by the international decision support initiative.

Who Conducts Health Economic Evaluations of Laboratory Tests? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are effectively used to inform decision making in healthcare. We sought to assess the level of involvement of laboratory professionals (LPs) in HEEs of laboratory tests.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (2013 to November 28, 2018) for original articles reporting HEEs of medical laboratory tests. Eligible studies were characterized by indication, utilization, region, setting, study design, primary outcome measures, and sponsorship. Authors were classified based on stated affiliation as clinician, scientist, public health expert, or LP.

RESULTS

In total, 140 HEEs were included in the study, of which 24 (17.1%) had contributions from LPs. Studies were primarily focused on infectious disease (n = 68), oncology (n = 23), and cardiovascular disease (n = 16). Cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 117) were the most frequent study types, with effectiveness measured mainly in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (n = 57) and detected cases (n = 41). Overall, 76% of HEEs followed a social or health system perspective, whereas 15% took a hospital viewpoint. Partial or full funding was received from public health organizations or industry in 39% and 16% of studies, respectively. The involvement of LPs was associated with test utilization, secondary care, analytic perspective, and an immediate time horizon (all P < 0.05). Quality of studies was found to be lower in HEEs coauthored by LPs.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to understanding the complexity of clinical pathways. HEEs are used effectively to inform healthcare decision making. The involvement of LPs in HEEs is low. This implies that laboratory expertise is frequently not considered in decision processes.

The reliability of LERI's sign in L4 and L3 radiculalgia

Although not as frequent as sciatica, cruralgia remains one of the most frequent reasons why people consult a neurosurgeon. It should be kept in mind, however, that every anterior leg pain is not cruralgia and thus several diagnoses must be discarded, such as of musculoskeletal diseases of hip, pelvis and femur. In the last years of the 19th century, André Léri, a French neurologist, described Leri's sign as it is used widely even today in everyday clinical practice. We studied retrospectively files of those patients who were seen in Neurosurgery by the authors for L3 and L4 nerve root compression to evaluate the reliability and accuracy of this sign. Between October 1998 and September 2017, 38,654 patients were examined in our department of Neurosurgery. Among them, 1698 patients presented pain as cruralgia and meralgia. In total, 1545 patients were included in the study. The data analysis showed that the sensitivity of LS was 0.9333 and the specificity 0.7974. The results of the study show a reliable diagnostic accuracy of Leri's sign.