Cost-effectiveness analysis of multimodal prognostication in cardiac arrest with EEG monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness parameters for EEG monitoring in cardiac arrest prognostication. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by adding continuous EEG monitoring to standard cardiac arrest prognostication using the American Academy of Neurology Practice Parameter (AANPP) decision algorithm: neurologic examination, somatosensory evoked potentials, and neuron-specific enolase. We explored lifetime cost-effectiveness in a closed system that incorporates revenue back into the medical system (return) from payers who survive a cardiac arrest with good outcome and contribute to the health system during the remaining years of life. Good outcome was defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1-2 and poor outcome as CPC of 3-5. RESULTS: An improvement in specificity for poor outcome prediction of 4.2% would be sufficient to make continuous EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP specificity = 83.9%). In sensitivity analysis, the effect of increased sensitivity on the cost-effectiveness of EEG depends on the utility (u) assigned to a poor outcome. For patients who regard surviving with a poor outcome (CPC 3-4) worse than death (u = -0.34), an increased sensitivity for poor outcome prediction of 13.8% would make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective (baseline AANPP sensitivity = 76.3%). In the closed system, an improvement in sensitivity of 1.8% together with an improvement in specificity of 3% was sufficient to make AANPP + EEG monitoring cost-effective, assuming lifetime return of 50% (USD $70,687). CONCLUSION: Incorporating continuous EEG monitoring into cardiac arrest prognostication is cost-effective if relatively small improvements in sensitivity and specificity are achieved.

Estimating the False Positive Rate of Absent Somatosensory Evoked Potentials in Cardiac Arrest Prognostication.

OBJECTIVES: Absence of somatosensory evoked potentials is considered a nearly perfect predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. However, reports of good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials and high rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies have raised concerns that estimates of the prognostic value of absent somatosensory evoked potentials may be biased by self-fulfilling prophecies. We aimed to develop an unbiased estimate of the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials as a predictor of poor outcome after cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: We selected 35 studies in cardiac arrest prognostication that reported somatosensory evoked potentials. DATA EXTRACTION: In each study, we identified rates of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies and good outcomes despite absent somatosensory evoked potentials. We appraised studies for potential biases using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Using these data, we developed a statistical model to estimate the false positive rate of absent somatosensory evoked potentials adjusted for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two-thousand one-hundred thirty-three subjects underwent somatosensory evoked potential testing. Five-hundred ninety-four had absent somatosensory evoked potentials; of these, 14 had good functional outcomes. The rate of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies for subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potential could be estimated in 14 of the 35 studies (mean 80%, median 100%). The false positive rate for absent somatosensory evoked potential in predicting poor neurologic outcome, adjusted for a withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies rate of 80%, is 7.7% (95% CI, 4-13%). CONCLUSIONS: Absent cortical somatosensory evoked potentials do not infallibly predict poor outcome in patients with coma following cardiac arrest. The chances of survival in subjects with absent somatosensory evoked potentials, though low, may be substantially higher than generally believed.

Selection of first-line therapy in multiple sclerosis using risk-benefit decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To integrate long-term measures of disease-modifying drug efficacy and risk to guide selection of first-line treatment of multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We created a Markov decision model to evaluate disability worsening and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) risk in patients receiving natalizumab (NTZ), fingolimod (FGL), or glatiramer acetate (GA) over 30 years. Leveraging publicly available data, we integrated treatment utility, disability worsening, and risk of PML into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We performed sensitivity analyses varying PML risk, mortality and morbidity, and relative risk of disease worsening across clinically relevant ranges. RESULTS: Over the entire reported range of NTZ-associated PML risk, NTZ as first-line therapy is predicted to provide a greater net benefit (15.06 QALYs) than FGL (13.99 QALYs) or GA (12.71 QALYs) treatment over 30 years, after accounting for loss of QALYs due to PML or death (resulting from all causes). NTZ treatment is associated with delayed worsening to an Expanded Disability Status Scale score ≥6.0 vs FGL or GA (22.7, 17.0, and 12.4 years, respectively). Compared to untreated patients, NTZ-treated patients have a greater relative risk of death in the early years of treatment that varies according to PML risk profile. CONCLUSIONS: NTZ as a first-line treatment is associated with the highest net benefit across full ranges of PML risk, mortality, and morbidity compared to FGL or GA. Integrated modeling of long-term treatment risks and benefits informs stratified clinical decision-making and can support patient counseling on selection of first-line treatment options.