Economic evaluation of strategies to reduce sudden cardiac death in young athletes.

OBJECTIVE: There is controversy about appropriate methods to reduce sudden cardiac death (SCD) in young athletes, but there is limited evidence on costs or consequences of alternative strategies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding electrocardiogram (ECG) screening to the currently standard practice of preparticipation history and physical examination (H&P) to reduce SCD. METHODS: Decision analysis modeling by using a societal perspective, with annual Markov cycles from age 14 until death. Three screening strategies were evaluated: (1) H&P, with cardiology referral if abnormal (current standard practice); (2) H&P, plus ECG after negative H&P, and cardiology referral if either is abnormal; and (3) ECG only, with cardiology referral if abnormal. Children identified with SCD-associated cardiac abnormalities were restricted from sports and received cardiac treatment. Main outcome measures were costs of screening and treatment, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and premature deaths averted. RESULTS: Relative to strategy 1, incremental cost-effectiveness is $68800/QALY for strategy 2 and $37700/QALY for strategy 3. Monte Carlo simulation revealed the chance of incremental cost-effectiveness compared with strategy 1 was 30% for strategy 2 and 66% for strategy 3 (assumed willingness to pay ≤$50000/QALY). Compared with strategy 1, strategy 2 averted 131 additional SCDs at $900000 per case, and strategy 3 averted 127 SCDs at $600000 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Under a societal willingness to pay threshold of $50000/QALY, adding ECGs to current preparticipation evaluations for athletes is not cost-effective, with costs driven largely by false-positive findings.

Modeled economic evaluation of alternative strategies to reduce sudden cardiac death among children treated for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stimulants are widely used to treat children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and may increase the risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). We examined the cost-effectiveness of pretreatment screening with ECG for reducing SCD risk in children diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are candidates for stimulant medication. Method and Results- We constructed a state-transition Markov model with 10 annual cycles spanning 7 to 17 years of age. Taking a societal perspective, we compared the cost-effectiveness of 3 screening strategies: (1) performing a history and physical examination with cardiology referral if abnormal (current standard of care); (2) performing a history and physical examination plus ECG after negative history and physical examination, with cardiology referral if either is abnormal; and (3) performing a history and physical examination plus ECG, with cardiology referral only if ECG is abnormal. Children identified with SCD-associated cardiac abnormalities would be restricted from stimulants and from playing competitive sports. The expected incremental cost-effectiveness over strategy 1 was $39,300 and $27,200 per quality-adjusted life-year for strategies 2 and 3, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation found that the chance of incremental cost-effectiveness was 55% for strategy 2 and 71% for strategy 3 (willingness to pay < or =$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Both strategies 2 and 3 would avert 13 SCDs per 400,000 children seeking stimulant treatment for ADHD, for a cost of $1.6 million per life for strategy 2 and $1.2 million per life for strategy 3. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to current practice, adding ECG screening to history and physical examination pretreatment screening for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder has borderline cost-effectiveness for preventing SCD. Relative cost-effectiveness may be improved by basing cardiology referral on ECG alone. Benefits of ECG screening arise primarily by restricting children identified with SCD risk from competitive sports.