Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification scores such as the European Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) are used to guide individuals on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Adding high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) to such risk scores has the potential to improve accuracy of CVD prediction. We investigated how applying hsTnI in addition to SCORE may impact management, outcome, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Characteristics of 72,190 apparently healthy individuals from the Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Europe (BiomarCaRE) project were included into a discrete-event simulation comparing two strategies for assessing CVD risk. The standard strategy reflecting current practice employed SCORE (SCORE); the alternative strategy involved adding hsTnI information for further stratifying SCORE risk categories (S-SCORE). Individuals were followed over ten years from baseline examination to CVD event, death or end of follow-up. The model tracked the occurrence of events and calculated direct costs of screening, prevention, and treatment from a European health system perspective. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in € per quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) gained during 10 years of follow-up. Outputs were validated against observed rates, and results were tested in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: S-SCORE yielded a change in management for 10.0% of individuals, and a reduction in CVD events (4.85% vs. 5.38%, p<0.001) and mortality (6.80% vs. 7.04%, p<0.001). S-SCORE led to 23 (95%CI: 20-26) additional event-free years and 7 (95%CI: 5-9) additional QALYs per 1,000 subjects screened, and resulted in a relative risk reduction for CVD of 9.9% (95%CI: 7.3-13.5%) with a number needed to screen to prevent one event of 183 (95%CI: 172 to 203). S-SCORE increased costs per subject by 187€ (95%CI: 177 € to 196 €), leading to an ICER of 27,440€/QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis was performed with eligibility for treatment being the most sensitive. CONCLUSION: Adding a person's hsTnI value to SCORE can impact clinical decision making and eventually improves QALYs and is cost-effective compared to CVD prevention strategies using SCORE alone. Stratifying SCORE risk classes for hsTnI would likely offer cost-effective alternatives, particularly when targeting higher risk groups.

Who Conducts Health Economic Evaluations of Laboratory Tests? A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are effectively used to inform decision making in healthcare. We sought to assess the level of involvement of laboratory professionals (LPs) in HEEs of laboratory tests. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (2013 to November 28, 2018) for original articles reporting HEEs of medical laboratory tests. Eligible studies were characterized by indication, utilization, region, setting, study design, primary outcome measures, and sponsorship. Authors were classified based on stated affiliation as clinician, scientist, public health expert, or LP. RESULTS: In total, 140 HEEs were included in the study, of which 24 (17.1%) had contributions from LPs. Studies were primarily focused on infectious disease (n = 68), oncology (n = 23), and cardiovascular disease (n = 16). Cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 117) were the most frequent study types, with effectiveness measured mainly in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (n = 57) and detected cases (n = 41). Overall, 76% of HEEs followed a social or health system perspective, whereas 15% took a hospital viewpoint. Partial or full funding was received from public health organizations or industry in 39% and 16% of studies, respectively. The involvement of LPs was associated with test utilization, secondary care, analytic perspective, and an immediate time horizon (all P < 0.05). Quality of studies was found to be lower in HEEs coauthored by LPs. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to understanding the complexity of clinical pathways. HEEs are used effectively to inform healthcare decision making. The involvement of LPs in HEEs is low. This implies that laboratory expertise is frequently not considered in decision processes.

A framework to analyze hospital-wide patient flow logistics: evidence from an Italian comparative study.

Through a comparative study of six Italian hospitals, the paper develops and tests a framework to analyze hospital-wide patient flow performance. The framework adopts a system-wide approach to patient flow management and is structured around three different levels: (1) the hospital, (2) the pipelines (possible patient journeys within the hospital) and (3) the production units (physical spaces, such as operating rooms, where service delivery takes places). The focus groups and the data analysis conducted within the study support that the model is a useful tool to investigate hospital-wide implications of patient flows. The paper provides also evidence about the causes of hospital patient flow problems. Particularly, while shortage of capacity does not seem to be a relevant driver, our data shows that patient flow variability caused by inadequate allocation of capacity does represent a key problem. Results also show that the lack of coordination between different pipelines and production units is critical. Finally, the problem of overlapping between elective and unscheduled cases can be solved by setting aside a certain level of capacity for unexpected peaks.

[New role for hospital department directors in a Milan hospital, Italy]. / Nuovo ruolo del dipartimento nell'ospedale per aree omogenee.

In Italy, the hospital departmental model was introduced over 30 years ago with the aim of fostering collaboration between wards and promoting the appropriate use of resources. However, these objectives have not been consistently met. For this reason, the Strategic Direction of the hospital "Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico" in Milan has proposed a new model in which department directors are given a more active role in hospital management and actively participate in decision-making processes.