Cost-Effectiveness of Immediate Magnetic Resonance Imaging In the Management of Patients With Suspected Scaphoid Fracture: Results From a Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Given the limited diagnostic accuracy of radiographs on presentation to the emergency department (ED), the management of suspected scaphoid fractures remains clinically challenging and poses an unknown economic burden to healthcare systems. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immediate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the management of patients presenting with suspected scaphoid fracture to an ED in England. METHODS: A pragmatic, randomized, single-center trial compared the use of immediate MRI in the ED against standard care with radiographs only. Participants' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated from primary care and secondary care databases and questionnaires at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months postrecruitment. Costs were compared using generalized linear models and combined with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D-5L) to estimate cost-effectiveness at 6 months postrecruitment. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate the probability of cost-effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Four deterministic sensitivity scenarios were considered around key parameters. RESULTS: The MRI intervention dominated standard care in the base case and all 4 deterministic sensitivity scenarios, costing less and achieving more QALY gains, with a probability of 100% of being cost-effective at 6 months using the conventional United Kingdom WTP thresholds of £20 000 to £30 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The use of immediate MRI is a cost-effective intervention in the management of suspected scaphoid fractures in a Central Hospital in London. Routine clinical practice at our institution has been changed to include the intervention.

Management of chronic headache with referral from primary care to direct access to MRI compared with Neurology services: an observational prospective study in London.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost, accessibility and patient satisfaction implications of two clinical pathways used in the management of chronic headache. INTERVENTION: Management of chronic headache following referral from Primary Care that differed in the first appointment, either a Neurology appointment or an MRI brain scan. DESIGN AND SETTING: A pragmatic, non-randomised, prospective, single-centre study at a Central Hospital in London. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with chronic headache referred from primary to secondary care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' use of healthcare services and costs were estimated using primary and secondary care databases and questionnaires quarterly up to 12 months postrecruitment. Cost analyses were compared using generalised linear models. Secondary outcomes assessed: access to care, patient satisfaction, headache burden and self-perceived quality of life using headache-specific (Migraine Disability Assessment Scale and Headache Impact Test) and a generic questionnaire (5-level EQ-5D). RESULTS: Mean (SD) cost up to 6 months postrecruitment per participant was £578 (£420) for the Neurology group (n=128) and £245 (£172) for the MRI group (n=95), leading to an estimated mean cost difference of £333 (95% CI £253 to £413, p<0.001). The mean cost difference at 12 months increased to £518 (95% CI £401 to £637, p<0.001). When adjusted for baseline and follow-up imbalances between groups, this remained statistically significant. The utilisation of brain MRI improved access to care compared with the Neurology group (p<0.001). Participants in the Neurology group reported higher levels of satisfaction associated with the pathway and led to greater change in care management. CONCLUSION: Direct referral to brain MRI from Primary Care led to cost-savings and quicker access to care but lower satisfaction levels when compared with referral to Neurology services. Further research into the use of brain MRI for a subset of patient population more likely to be reassured by a negative brain scan should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02753933.