4.6 Article

The cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for familial hypercholesterolaemia in Poland

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 270, 期 -, 页码 132-138

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2018.01.036

关键词

Familial hypercholesterolemia; Cost-effectiveness; Cost-utility; Screening; Genetic test; Cascade screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) elevates the cholesterol level and increases the risk of coronary events and death. Early detection and treatment reduce this risk. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of FH screening in Poland in children, first job takers, and after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event, each followed by a cascade screening in the relatives of the positivelydiagnosed subjects. Methods: A decision tree was constructed to model the diagnosis process. We considered scenarios with and without genetic testing. A life-time Markov was built to investigate the effectiveness (life years gained, LYG; and quality-adjusted life years, QALY) and cost (public payer perspective) of treatment in FH-affected subjects. The clinical benefits result from early treatment reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (and death, in result). Model parameters were based on published data and experts' opinions. The costs (patients visits, tests, drugs) were estimated from the National Health Fund data and other publicly-available sources. Results: Screening ACS patients below 55/65 years of age in men/women is the most cost-effective strategy: the cost of one LYG (QALY) amounts to 100 EUR (110 EUR). Removing the age limit or using genetic tests reduced cost-effectiveness; nonetheless, all strategies remained cost effective: the cost of one LYG or QALY was < 5040 EUR, much lower than the official threshold of ca. 29,800 EUR/QALY. Conclusions: Screening for FH is highly cost-effective in Poland. The strategies are complementary, and using a combination thereof is recommended. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据