Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > International Angiology 2017 December;36(6) > International Angiology 2017 December;36(6):517-25

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Freefree

International Angiology 2017 December;36(6):517-25

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.16.03777-9

Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Revisiting the cost-effectiveness of screening 65-year-old men for abdominal aortic aneurysm based on data from an implemented screening program

Jakob HAGER 1, 2 , Martin HENRIKSSON 3, Per CARLSSON 3, Toste LÄNNE 2, Fredrik LUNDGREN 4

1 Department of Surgery, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden; 2 Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; 3 Division of Health Care Analysis, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden; 4 Department of Surgery, Kalmar County Hospital, Kalmar, Sweden


PDF


BACKGROUND: Health economic analyses based on randomized trials have shown that screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) cost-effectively decreases AAA-related, as well as all-cause mortality. However, follow-up from implemented screening programs now reveal substantially changed conditions in terms of prevalence, attendance rate, costs and mortality after intervention. Our aim was to evaluate whether screening for AAA among 65-year-old men is cost-effective based on contemporary data on prevalence and attendance rates from an ongoing AAA screening program.
METHODS: A decision-analytic model, previously used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of an AAA screening program prior to implementation in clinical practice, was updated using data collected from an implemented screening program as well as data from contemporary published data and the Swedish register for vascular surgery (Swedvasc).
RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that the cost per life-year gained and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were € 4832 and € 6325, respectively. Based on conventional threshold values of cost-effectiveness, the probability of screening being cost-effective was high.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the reduction of AAA-prevalence and changes in AAA-management over time, screening 65-year-old men for AAA still appears to yield health outcomes at a cost below conventional thresholds of cost-effectiveness.


KEY WORDS: Cost-benefit analysis - Mass screening - Abdominal aortic aneurysm - Aged

top of page