Cost-effectiveness of quantitative pretest probability intended to reduce unnecessary medical radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain and dyspnea

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications.

RESULTS

7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

A systematic review on the effectiveness and impact of clinical decision support systems for breathlessness

Breathlessness is a common presenting symptom in practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of CDSS on breathlessness and associated diseases in real-world clinical settings. Studies published between 1 January 2000 to 10 September 2021 were systematically obtained from 14 electronic research databases including CENTRAL, Embase, Pubmed, and clinical trial registries. Main outcomes of interest were patient health outcomes, provider use, diagnostic concordance, economic evaluation, and unintended consequences. The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020163141). A total of 4294 records were screened and 37 studies included of which 30 were RCTs. Twenty studies were in primary care, 13 in hospital outpatient/emergency department (ED), and the remainder mixed. Study duration ranged from 2 weeks to 5 years. Most were adults (58%). Five CDSS were focused on assessment, one on assessment and management, and the rest on disease-specific management. Most studies were disease-specific, predominantly focused on asthma (17 studies), COPD (2 studies), or asthma and COPD (3 studies). CDSS for COPD, heart failure, and asthma in adults reported clinical benefits such as reduced exacerbations, improved quality of life, improved patient-reported outcomes or reduced mortality. Studies identified low usage as the main barrier to effectiveness. Clinicians identified dissonance between CDSS recommendations and real-world practice as a major barrier. This review identified potential benefits of CDSS implementation in primary care and outpatient services for adults with heart failure, COPD, and asthma in improving diagnosis, compliance with guideline recommendations, promotion of non-pharmacological interventions, and improved clinical outcomes including mortality.

Permanent inferior vena cava filters offer greater expected patient utility at lower predicted cost

OBJECTIVE

Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were first approved for use in the United States in 2003 to address the long-term complications of migration, thrombosis, fracture, and perforation observed with permanent IVC filter implantation. Although Food and Drug Administration approval of retrievable IVC filters includes permanent implantation, the incidence of complications from long-term implantation appears to be greater than that reported with existing permanent IVC filters. Also, only a small fraction of such retrievable IVC filters are ever retrieved. The purpose of the present study was to determine the threshold retrieval rate at which the use of retrievable IVC filters could be justified.

METHODS

A Markov decision tree was constructed comparing retrievable and permanent IVC filters regarding their effectiveness and cost. A review of the reported data provided outcome probabilities, and the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was the source of the utility values for the various potential outcomes. Medicare reimbursement rates served as a proxy for costs. A sensitivity analysis was performed for various parameters, primarily to determine the retrieval rate threshold at which the use of retrievable IVC filters would outperform the use of permanent IVC filters.

RESULTS

Base case analysis demonstrated a greater predicted effectiveness for permanent compared with retrievable IVC filter implantation (5.41 quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] vs 5.33 QALY) at a lower cost ($2070 vs $4650). Monte Carlo simulation at 10,000 iterations confirmed the expected utility (5.4 ± 3.0 QALY vs 5.3 ± 3.0 QALY; P = .0002) and cost ($1900 ± $7400 vs $4800 ± 9900; P < .0001) to be statistically superior for permanent IVC filters. A sensitivity analysis for the filter retrieval rate demonstrated that the strategy of using a retrievable IVC filter was never preferable for utility or cost. The superiority of permanent IVC filter placement for effectiveness and cost persisted, regardless of anticipated patient-predicted annual mortality. A two-way sensitivity analysis for both IVC filter removal rate and annual patient mortality confirmed the superiority of permanent IVC filter placement at all levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The predicted effectiveness of permanent IVC filters was greater and the predicted cost lower than those for retrievable IVC filters, regardless of the IVC filter retrieval rate. This interpretation of existing reported data using Markov decision analysis modeling supports the argument that unless the long-term complication rate of retrievable IVC filters can be significantly improved, their use should be abandoned in favor of currently available permanent IVC filters.

Reduced Computed Tomography Use in the Emergency Department Evaluation of Headache Was Not Followed by Increased Death or Missed Diagnosis

Introduction

This study investigated whether a 9.6% decrease in the use of head computed tomography (HCT) for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with a chief complaint of headache was followed by an increase in proportions of death or missed intracranial diagnosis during the 22.5-month period following each index ED visit.

Methods

We reviewed the electronic medical records of all patients sampled during a quality improvement effort in which the aforementioned decrease in HCT use had been observed. We reviewed notes from the ED, neurology, neurosurgery, and primary care services, as well as all brain imaging results to determine if death occurred or if an intracranial condition was discovered in the 22.5 months after each index ED visit. An independent, blinded reviewer reviewed each case where an intracranial condition was diagnosed after ED discharge to determine whether the condition was reasonably likely to have been related to the index ED visit’s presentation, thereby representing a missed diagnosis.

Results

Of the 582 separate index ED visits sampled, we observed a total of nine deaths and 10 missed intracranial diagnoses. There was no difference in the proportion of death (p = 0.337) or missed intracranial diagnosis (p = 0.312) observed after a 9.6% reduction in HCT use. Among patients who subsequently had visits for headache or brain imaging, we found that these patients were significantly more likely to have not had a HCT done during the index ED visit (59.2% vs. 49.6% (p = 0.031) and 37.1% vs. 26% (p = 0.006), respectively).

Conclusion

Our study adds to the compelling evidence that there is opportunity to safely decrease CT imaging for ED patients. To determine the cost effectiveness of such reductions further research is needed to measure what patients and their healthcare providers do after discharge from the ED when unnecessary testing is withheld.

Clinical Decision Rules for Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda

BACKGROUND

Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference.

RESULTS

A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED?

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.