Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings.

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Systematic review and evidence gap assessment of the clinical, quality of life, and economic burden of alpha-thalassemia.

A recent evidence gaps assessment of the clinical, health-related quality of life, and economic burden associated with α-thalassemia is lacking. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) following the methodological and reporting requirements of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, using available literature over the past decade. This SLR identified a considerable evidence gap with regard to understanding the current burden of α-thalassemia as evident from paucity of studies published in the past 10 years. The limited data available still indicate that patients with α-thalassemia experience substantial morbidity and quality of life/economic burden that is generally comparable to patients with ß-thalassemia.

Comparative value of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) imposes a high disease burden on patients, primarily because of multimorbidity and frequent hospitalizations. Recently, the American College of Cardiology Expert Consensus recommended treating all patients diagnosed with HFpEF with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin, to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization and improve health status. However, managing HFpEF can be expensive, highlighting the need to assess therapeutic alternatives that can minimize health care costs while optimizing patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin in managing patients with HFpEF from the US health care system perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate a cohort of patients with HFpEF (defined as having a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%) treated with dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. Transition probabilities between 3 health states (HFpEF, hospitalization for heart failure, and death), costs, and quality of life weight input variables were obtained from the literature. In the base-case analysis, we estimated total expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon. All future expected costs and QALYs were discounted at the annual rate of 3%. We conducted sensitivity analyses to demonstrate the robustness of the cost-effectiveness model findings. RESULTS: Dapagliflozin had an incremental expected lifetime cost of $29,896 compared with empagliflozin, resulting in an ICER of $36,902/QALY. Value-based price threshold analysis suggested that for empagliflozin to be cost-effective, it would need a 29% discount on its annual price. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, dapagliflozin would be the most preferred cost-effective option at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY about 72% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, from the US health care system perspective, dapagliflozin was more cost-effective than empagliflozin, and its uptake may enhance long-term outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin vs Empagliflozin for Treating Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in the United States.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that adding dapagliflozin to the prior standard of care is cost-effective compared with the standard of care alone. The latest guideline by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America now recommends the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the relative cost-effectiveness of different SGLT2 inhibitors, including dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, has not been fully characterized. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF from the US health care perspective. METHODS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in treating HFrEF, we used a state-transition Markov model. This model was used to estimate the expected lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both medications. The model incorporated patients who were 65 years of age at entry and simulated their health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. The perspective of the analysis was based on the US health care system. To determine the health state transition probabilities, we used a network meta-analysis. All future costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3%, and the costs were presented in 2022 US dollars. FINDINGS: The base case analysis found that the incremental expected lifetime cost of treating patients with dapagliflozin vs empagliflozin was $37,684, resulting in an ICER of $44,763 per QALY. A price threshold analysis indicated that for empagliflozin to be the most cost-effective SGLT2 inhibitor at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY, it may require a 12% discount on its current annual prices. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this study indicate that dapagliflozin may offer greater lifetime economic value when compared with empagliflozin. Given that the current clinical practice guideline does not recommend one SGLT2 inhibitor over the other, it is essential to implement scalable strategies to ensure affordable access to both medications. By doing so, patients and health care practitioners can make informed decisions about their treatment options without being constrained by financial barriers.

Comparative Value of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Persons with Moderate-to-Severe Alzheimer's Disease in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) involves symptomatic improvement of cognition using cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine. The cost-effectiveness of these medications will guide decision-makers in making judicious use of scarce healthcare resources, particularly during the advanced disease stages. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ChEIs, memantine, and ChEI-memantine combinations in persons with moderate-to-severe AD from the US healthcare perspective. METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation study used a state-transition Markov cohort model to simulate the costs and effectiveness of ChEI-memantine combinations compared with monotherapies of ChEI (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine in persons with moderate-to-severe AD over a lifetime horizon with a 1-year cycle length. We estimated expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 $US), net monetary benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We discounted future costs and QALYs at the rate of 3%. RESULTS: In this study, donepezil monotherapy, galantamine-memantine combination, and rivastigmine transdermal patch formed the cost-effectiveness frontier. Findings suggests that rivastigmine transdermal patch is the optimal treatment strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY (ICER = $93,307/QALY [versus donepezil monotherapy]). Results across subgroups by age and sex also suggest that the rivastigmine transdermal patch is the optimal treatment strategy with the highest net benefit. CONCLUSION: From the US healthcare perspective, we found that, for persons with moderate-to-severe AD at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the rivastigmine transdermal patch is the most cost-effective pharmacological treatment option. Given that the transdermal patch is a preferred route of administration for persons with AD and their caregivers due to its convenience, our findings provide additional incentives for its use.