The Library

Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia using alternative diagnostic and identification strategies

Tools

Nherera, L., Marks, D., Minhas, Rubin, Thorogood, Margaret and Humphries, Steve E.. (2011) Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of cascade screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia using alternative diagnostic and identification strategies. Heart, Vol.97 (No.1175). e1181. ISSN 1355-6037

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Thorogood_Nherera_at_al_Revised_final_230311.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (757Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2010.213975

Abstract

Objective To estimate the probabilistic cost-effectiveness
of cascade screening methods in familial
hypercholesterolaemia (FH) from the UK NHS perspective.
Design Economic evaluation (cost utility analysis)
comparing four cascade screening strategies for FH:
Using low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol
measurements to diagnose affected relatives
(cholesterol method); cascading only in patients with
a causative mutation identiﬁed and using DNA tests to
diagnose relatives (DNA method); DNA testing combined
with LDL-cholesterol testing in families with no mutation
identiﬁed, only in patients with clinically deﬁned ‘deﬁnite’
FH (DNA+DFH method); DNA testing combined with
LDL-cholesterol testing in no-mutation families of both
‘deﬁnite’ and ‘probable’ FH patients (DNA+DFH+PFH).
A probabilistic model was constructed to estimate the
treatment beneﬁt from statins, with all diagnosed
individuals receiving high-intensity statin treatment.
Population A cohort of 1000 people suspected of
having FH aged 50 years for index cases and 30 years for
relatives, followed for a lifetime.
Main outcomes Costs, quality-adjusted life-years
(QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).
Results The DNA+DFH+PFH method was the most
cost-effective cascade screening strategy. The ICER was
estimated at £3666/QALY. Using this strategy, of the
tested relatives 30.6% will be true positives, 6.3% false
positives, 61.9% true negatives and 1.1% false negatives.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that this
approach is 100% cost-effective using the conventional
benchmark for cost-effective treatments in the NHS of
between £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY gained.
Conclusion Cascade testing of relatives of patients with
DFH and PFH is cost-effective when using a combination
of DNA testing for known family mutations and
LDL-cholesterol levels in the remaining families. The
approach is more cost-effective than current primary
prevention screening strategies.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Medical screening -- Cost effectiveness, Hypercholesteremia -- Diagnosis -- Cost effectiveness, Hypercholesteremia -- Diagnosis -- Evaluation

Journal or Publication Title:

Heart

Publisher:

B M J Group

ISSN:

1355-6037

Official Date:

2011

Dates:

Date	Event
2011	Published

Volume:

Vol.97

Number:

No.1175

Page Range:

e1181

Identification Number:

10.1136/hrt.2010.213975

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Publication Status:

Published

Access rights to Published version:

Restricted or Subscription Access

Funder:

National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (Great Britain) (NCCPC), National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Great Britain) (NICE)

References:

References
1. Austin MA, Hutter CM, Zimmern RL et al. Genetic causes of monogenic heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: a HuGE prevalence review. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160:407-420.
2. Marks D, Thorogood M, Neil HA et al. A review on the diagnosis, natural history, and treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia. Atherosclerosis 2003;168:1-14.
3. Varret M, Abifadel M, Rabes JP, Boileau C: Genetic heterogeneity of autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Clin Genet 2008; 73:1-13.
4. Betteridge D. Mortality in treated heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: implications for clinical management. Athereosclerosis 1999; 142:105-112.
5. Neil A, Cooper J, Betteridge J et al. Reductions in all-cause, cancer, and coronary mortality in statin-treated patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a prospective registry study. Eur Heart J 2008; 29:2625-33.
6. Marks D, Thorogood M, Farrer JM, Humphries SE. Census of clinics providing specialist lipid services in the United Kingdom. J Public Health 2004; 26:353-354.
7. The Simon Broome Register Group. Scientific Steering Committee on behalf of The Simon Broome Register Group. The risk of fatal coronary heart disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ 1991; 303:893-896.
8. Kwiterovich PO Jrn, Fredrickson DS, Levy RI. Familial hypercholesterolemia (one form of familial type II hyperlipoproteinemia). A study of its biochemical, genetic and clinical presentation in childhood. Journal of Clinical Invest 1974; 53:1237-1249.
9. Leonard JV, Whitelaw AG, Wolff OH et al. Diagnosing familial hypercholesterolaemia in childhood by measuring serum cholesterol. Br Med J. 1977; 18; 1:1566-8.
10. Starr B, Hadfield SG, Hutten BA, et al. Development of sensitive and specific age- and gender-specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol cut-offs for diagnosis of first-degree relatives with familial hypercholesterolaemia in cascade testing. Clin Chem and Lab 2008; 46:791-803.
11. Graham CA, McIlhatton BP, Kirk CW et al. Genetic screening protocol for familial hypercholesterolemia which includes splicing defects gives an improved mutation detection rate. Atherosclerosis 2005; 182:331-340.
12. Humphries SE, Whittall RA, Hubbart CS et al. Genetic causes of familial hypercholesterolaemia in patients in the UK: relation to plasma lipid levels and coronary heart disease risk. J Med Genet 2006; 43:943-949.
13. Taylor A, Wang D, Patel et al. Mutation detection rate and spectrum in familial hypercholesterolaemia patients in the UK pilot cascade project. Clin Genet 2010; 77:572-580.
14. DeMott K, Nherera L, Shaw EJ et al. Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for Familial hypercholesterolaemia: the identification and management of adults and children with familial hypercholesterolaemia. 2008. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners.
15. Minhas R, Humphries SE, Qureshi N, Neil HA; NICE Guideline Development Group. Controversies in familial hypercholesterolaemia: recommendations of the NICE Guideline Development Group for the identification and management of familial hypercholesterolaemia. Heart. 2009 Apr;95(7):584-7
16. Hadfield SG, Horara S, Starr BJ et al. Steering Group for the Department of Health Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Cascade Testing Audit Project. Family tracing to identify patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia: the second audit of the Department of Health Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Cascade Testing Project. Ann Clin Biochem.2009; 46:24-32.
17. Health Survey of England 2003
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4098712
18. Nherera L, Calvert NW, DeMott K et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of a high-intensity statin compared to a low-intensity statin in the management of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26:529–36.
19. Hadfield SG, Horara S, Starr BJ et al. Steering Group for the Department of Health Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Cascade Testing Audit Project. Family tracing to identify patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia: the second audit of the Department of Health Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Cascade Testing Project. Ann Clin Biochem.2009; 46:24-32.
20. Government Actuary's Department. Interim Life Tables: Governement Actuary's Department, 2006 http://www.gad.gov.uk/Demography_Data/Life_Tables/Interim_life_tables.asp
21. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events. Technology Appraisal http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/TA94. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006.
22. Huxley RR, Hawkins MH, Humphries SE et al. Simon Broome Familial Hyperlipidaemia Register Group and Scientific Steering Committee. Risk of fatal stroke in patients with treated familial hypercholesterolemia: a prospective registry study. Stroke. 2003; 34:22-5.
23. LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD et al. Intensive Lipid Lowering with Atorvastatin in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease. N Eng J Med 2005;352:1425-1435.
24. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJP et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-sose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2437-2445.
25. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1495-504.
26. de Lemos JA, Blazing MA, Wiviott SD et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes phase Z of the A to Z Trial. JAMA 2004;292:1307-16.
27. British National Formulary March 2011 Number 61. Available from http://bnf.org/bnf/index.htm
28. Curtis, L. & Netten, A. (2010) Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2010, Personal Social Services Research
29. Department of Health, NHS reference costs 2010/11. Reference Costs 2010. Available http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111591
30. Health survey of England 1996, Adjusting utility for age http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/survey96/tab5-29.htm
31. Taylor F, Ward K, Moore THM, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Casas JP, Ebrahim S. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD004816. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub4.
32. Fenwick, E, O'Brien, BJ, Briggs, A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13:405-415.
33. Cantor S.B Medical.Cost - Effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics: a quantitative assessment. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14:259-65.
34. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Unintended effects of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population based cohort study using the QResearch database. BMJ. 2010 May 20; 340:c2197. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2197
35. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Individualising the risks of statins in men and women in England and Wales: population-based cohort study.Heart. 2010 Jun;96(12):939-47.
36. Marks D, Wonderling D, Thorogood M et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia. [See comment]. BMJ 2002; 324:1303-1306.
37. Marks D, Thorogood M, Neil HA, et al. Comparing costs and benefits over a 10 year period of strategies for familial hypercholesterolaemia screening. J Public Health Med 2003; 25:47-52.
38. Wonderling D, Umans-Eckenhausen MA, Marks D et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the genetic screening program for familial hypercholesterolemia in The Netherlands. Semin in Vasc Med 2004; 4:97-104.
39. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. 2008. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG67.