Expert Elicitation to Inform a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for Renal Cancer

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Single versus Repeated Use of Single-Use Devices in Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To estimate the net cost effect associated with the real-world practice of repeated use of designated single-use medical devices (SUDs) versus their proper single use in cataract surgery in Greece.

DESIGN

A cost-benefit analysis model was constructed in the form of a decision tree.

METHODS

A digital expert panel was assembled in order to estimate the probabilities of intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with single and repeated use of SUDs. Unit costs for the management of each complication were obtained from the official Greek bulletins. A Monte Carlo-type sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Based on the probabilities of complications attained from the expert panel, repeated use of SUDs is associated with a higher chance of complications compared to single use, which results in higher cost of complication management. Under the healthcare sector perspective, the total expected cost per cataract surgery is 1,403.98€ (1,244.20€ the initial cost of cataract surgery plus 159.78€ the cost of adverse events) in the case of single use, while for repeated use the total cost is 1,486.29€ (1,146.86€ + 339.43€, respectively) and, thus, repeated use of SUDs in cataract surgery results in 82.31€ higher expected cost per patient compared to their single use. Moreover, the societal perspective analysis indicated even higher additional costs in the case of SUD reuse (108.24€).

CONCLUSION

Repeated use of SUDs in cataract surgery is not appropriate, it jeopardizes patient safety and carries a legal liability for the reuser. The present study, which is the first to attach a monetary value to the common yet questionable practice of SUD reuse, shows that it is not cost beneficial. Therefore, it is expected that the results will have implications in policy formulations to improve the delivery of cataract healthcare.

A Decision Analysis Evaluating Screening for Kidney Cancer Using Focused Renal Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Screening for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been identified as a key research priority; however, no randomised control trials have been performed. Value of information analysis can determine whether further research on this topic is of value.

OBJECTIVE

To determine (1) whether current evidence suggests that screening is potentially cost-effective and, if so, (2) in which age/sex groups, (3) identify evidence gaps, and (4) estimate the value of further research to close those gaps.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A decision model was developed evaluating screening in asymptomatic individuals in the UK. A National Health Service perspective was adopted.

INTERVENTION

A single focused renal ultrasound scan compared with standard of care (no screening).

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Expected lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted at 3.5% per annum.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Given a prevalence of RCC of 0.34% (0.18-0.54%), screening 60-yr-old men resulted in an ICER of £18 092/QALY (€22 843/QALY). Given a prevalence of RCC of 0.16% (0.08-0.25%), screening 60-yr-old women resulted in an ICER of £37327/QALY (€47 129/QALY). In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER was <£30000/QALY as long as the prevalence of RCC was ≥0.25% for men and ≥0.2% for women at age 60yr. Given the willingness to pay a threshold of £30000/QALY (€37 878/QALY), the population-expected values of perfect information were £194 million (€244 million) and £97 million (€123 million) for 60-yr-old men and women, respectively. The expected value of perfect parameter information suggests that the prevalence of RCC and stage shift associated with screening are key research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that one-off screening of 60-yr-old men is potentially cost-effective and that further research into this topic would be of value to society.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Economic modelling suggests that screening 60-yr-old men for kidney cancer using ultrasound may be a good use of resources and that further research on this topic should be performed.