Stojanovic Ivana, Schneider John E, Cooper Jacie
a Avalon Health Economics , Morristown , NJ , USA.
J Med Econ. 2019 May;22(5):430-438. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2019.1580713. Epub 2019 Mar 15.
The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).
A "payer perspective" model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8 years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a "hospital perspective" from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.
In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.
Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.
The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals.
本研究旨在评估新型冠状动脉疾病(CAD)诊断工具快速应变编码心脏成像(Fast-SENC)与当前常用的应力测试单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)之间的经济成本差异以及相关治疗资源的变化。
首先建立了一个“支付方视角”模型,该模型由长期和短期部分组成,使用了一组平均年龄为60.8岁、有胸痛症状且疑似患有CAD的假设患者队列来评估成本影响。然后构建了一个成本影响模型,该模型从“医院视角”评估了假设美国医院每年进行的SPECT测试平均数量,用Fast-SENC替代部分SPECT可能节省的成本。
在支付方模型中,考虑到检测的直接和间接成本,先使用Fast-SENC,然后在必要时进行冠状动脉造影(CA)和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),其成本低于SPECT方法。Fast-SENC每正确诊断一例的预期成本在2510美元至2632美元之间,而SPECT的预期成本在3157美元至4078美元之间。Fast-SENC将假阳性降低了50%,假阴性降低了86%,从而节省了额外成本。医院模型显示,SPECT对每位CAD患者的每次就诊总成本为825美元,Fast-SENC为376美元。
本研究的局限性在于临床数据来源于其他已发表的关于CAD诊断策略如何影响临床结果的临床试验,并且做出了影响健康结果的必要假设。
较低的成本、更高的灵敏度和特异度,以及检测CAD患者的过程更快、负担更小,使得Fast-SENC成为一种比SPECT更有效且在经济上更有益的应力测试。支付方模型和医院模型表明,支付方和医疗机构的经济利益是一致的,因为Fast-SENC为患者节省了费用,为医院带来了资源效益。