Hopmans Esther M, Ruigrok Ynte M, Bor Anne Se, Rinkel Gabriel Je, Koffijberg Hendrik
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Brain Centre Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Dec;1(4):320-329. doi: 10.1177/2396987316674862. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
Although persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage have an increased risk of aneurysm formation and aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage, screening them for unruptured intracranial aneurysms was not beneficial in a modelling study from the 1990s. New data on the risk of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage in these persons and improved treatment techniques call for reassessment of the cost-effectiveness of screening.
We used a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model and Monte Carlo simulation comparing screening and preventive aneurysm treatment with no screening in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. We analyzed the impact on quality-adjusted life years, costs and net health benefit of single screening (at varying screening age) and serial screening (with varying screening age and intervals) using a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year.
In 17 of the 24 strategies assessed, additional costs for screening for unruptured intracranial aneurysm were <€20,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The strategy with highest net health benefit was screening at age 40 and 55. Screening every five years from age 20 to 70 yielded the highest health benefits at the highest additional costs.
Based on current risks of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage and complications of preventive treatment, several strategies to screen for unruptured intracranial aneurysm in persons with one first-degree relative with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage are cost effective compared with no screening, when applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000/quality-adjusted life year.
We recommend discussing with persons at risk the option of screening twice, at age 40 and 55, which will result overall in substantial health benefits at acceptable additional costs.
尽管有一位一级亲属患动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的人发生动脉瘤形成和动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的风险增加,但在20世纪90年代的一项模型研究中,对他们进行未破裂颅内动脉瘤筛查并无益处。关于这些人发生动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血风险的新数据以及改进的治疗技术,要求重新评估筛查的成本效益。
我们采用成本效益分析,使用马尔可夫模型和蒙特卡罗模拟,比较对有一位一级亲属患动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的人进行筛查和预防性动脉瘤治疗与不进行筛查的情况。我们使用20,000欧元/质量调整生命年的成本效益阈值,分析了单次筛查(在不同筛查年龄)和系列筛查(在不同筛查年龄和间隔)对质量调整生命年、成本和净健康效益的影响。
在评估的24种策略中的17种中,每获得一个质量调整生命年,未破裂颅内动脉瘤筛查的额外成本低于20,000欧元。净健康效益最高的策略是在40岁和55岁时进行筛查。从20岁到70岁每五年进行一次筛查,在额外成本最高的情况下产生的健康效益最高。
基于目前动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的风险和预防性治疗的并发症,当应用20,000欧元/质量调整生命年的成本效益阈值时,与不进行筛查相比,对有一位一级亲属患动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血的人进行未破裂颅内动脉瘤筛查的几种策略具有成本效益。
我们建议与有风险人群讨论在40岁和55岁时进行两次筛查的选择,这总体上会在可接受的额外成本下带来显著的健康效益。