Screening for insulinoma antigen 2 and zinc transporter 8 autoantibodies: a cost-effective and age-independent strategy to identify rapid progressors to clinical onset among relatives of type 1 diabetic patients.

In first-degree relatives of type 1 diabetic patients, we investigated whether diabetes risk assessment solely based on insulinoma antigen 2 (IA-2) and zinc transporter 8 (ZnT8) antibody status (IA-2A, respectively, ZnT8A) is as effective as screening for three or four autoantibodies [antibodies against insulin (IAA), glutamate decarboxylase 65 kDa (GAD) glutamate decarboxylase autoantibodies (GADA) and IA-2A with or without ZnT8A] in identifying children, adolescents and adults who progress rapidly to diabetes (within 5 years). Antibodies were determined by radiobinding assays during follow-up of 6444 siblings and offspring aged 0-39 years at inclusion and recruited consecutively by the Belgian Diabetes Registry. We identified 394 persistently IAA(+) , GADA(+) , IA-2A(+) and/or ZnT8A(+) relatives (6·1%). After a median follow-up time of 52 months, 132 relatives developed type 1 diabetes. In each age category tested (0-9, 10-19 and 20-39 years) progression to diabetes was significantly quicker in the presence of IA-2A and/or ZnT8A than in their joint absence (P < 0·001). Progression rate was age-independent in IA-2A(+) and/or ZnT8A(+) relatives but decreased with age if only GADA and/or IAA were present (P = 0·008). In the age group mainly considered for immune interventions until now (10-39 years), screening for IA-2A and ZnT8A alone identified 78% of the rapid progressors (versus 75% if positive for ≥ 2 antibodies among IAA, GADA, IA-2A and ZnT8A or versus 62% without testing for ZnT8A). Screening for IA-2A and ZnT8A alone allows identification of the majority of rapidly progressing prediabetic siblings and offspring regardless of age and is more cost-effective to select participants for intervention trials than conventional screening.

Cost minimization analysis to compare activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC) and recombinant factor VIIa for haemophilia patients with inhibitors undergoing major orthopaedic surgeries.

Benefits of bypassing agents for maintaining haemostasis in major surgeries have been described in the literature; however, their use has a substantial economic impact. This study assessed the cost of FEIBA, an activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) when used in inhibitor patients undergoing major surgeries. After reviewing published literature, a cost minimization model was developed describing dosing regimens recommended and used during major surgeries for FEIBA (pre-operative: 75-100 U kg(-1); postoperative: 75-100 U kg(-1) q 8-12 h days 1-5 and 75-100 U kg(-1) q 12 h days 6-14) and rFVIIa (pre-operative: 90 microg kg(-1); intra-operative: 90 microg kg(-1) q 2 h; postoperative: 90 microg kg(-1) q 2-4 h days 1-5 and 90 microg kg(-1) q 6 h days 6-14). Using a 75 kg patient and US prices, total drug cost was calculated for three scenarios: use of FEIBA or rFVIIa alone and a third case combining rFVIIa pre- and intra-operative and FEIBA throughout a 14-day postoperative period. Dosage amounts of modelled bypassing agents were similar to cases in the literature. Using FEIBA instead of rFVIIa would decrease total drug cost by >50% and save over $400,000 per surgery. Sequential use of both bypassing agents would increase total drug cost by 9% when compared with FEIBA alone, but would remain >40% lower than rFVIIa alone. Univariate sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of results. As large amounts of bypassing agents are necessary for patients with inhibitors to undergo major surgeries, cost is a major consideration. Use of FEIBA alone or in combination with rFVIIa has emerged as a cost-saving approach.

Evaluation of the endomysial antibody for celiac disease: operating properties and associated cost implications in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the operating properties of endomysial antibodies (EMAs) in the diagnosis of celiac disease and to examine, using a cost minimization model, different strategies used in the diagnosis of celiac disease. METHODS: A total of 248 EMA results were reviewed and compared with small bowel biopsy results in 66 patients who had undergone both tests. Regression analysis was used to look for predictors of positive EMA results and positive biopsy results. A cost minimization model from a societal perspective was used to evaluate the cost differences among three different strategies. RESULTS: EMAs had a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 64%. The only predictor of a positive biopsy result that reached statistical significance was a positive EMA. The strategy of EMA as a diagnostic test for celiac disease was the most expensive strategy, with a cost of $3,174 per patient assessed. The strategy of small bowel biopsy for all patients had a cost of $997, and a strategy of EMA followed by small bowel biopsy for positive patients had a cost of $866 per patient. The results were sensitive to cost of a gluten-free diet, the specificity of the EMA and the cost of a small bowel biopsy. CONCLUSION: The EMA is best used as a screening test from both a clinical and cost perspective.