Search

Introduction: Few economic evaluations have assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in different healthcare settings. This study aims to evaluate the value for money of various T2DM screening strategies in Vietnam., Methods: A decision analytical model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of T2DM screening in different health care settings, including (1) screening at commune health station (CHS) and (2) screening at district health center (DHC), with no screening as the current practice. We further explored the costs and QALYs of different initial screening ages and different screening intervals. Cost and utility data were obtained by primary data collection in Vietnam. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from societal and payer perspectives, while uncertainty analysis was performed to explore parameter uncertainties., Results: Annual T2DM screening at either CHS or DHC was cost-effective in Vietnam, from both societal and payer perspectives. Annual screening at CHS was found as the best screening strategy in terms of value for money. From a societal perspective, annual screening at CHS from initial age of 40 years was associated with 0.40 QALYs gained while saving US$ 186.21. Meanwhile, one-off screening was not cost-effective when screening for people younger than 35 years old at both CHS and DHC., Conclusions: T2DM screening should be included in the Vietnamese health benefits package, and annual screening at either CHS or DHC is recommended., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Screening for peripheral artery disease (PAD) with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test is currently not recommended in the general population; however, previous studies advocate screening in high-risk populations. Although providers may be hesitant to prescribe low-dose rivaroxaban to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) alone, given the reduction in cardiovascular events and death associated with rivaroxaban, screening for PAD with the ABI test and accordingly prescribing rivaroxaban may provide additional benefits. We sought to describe the cost-effectiveness of screening for PAD in patients with CAD to optimize this high-risk populations' medical management., Methods: We used a Markov model to evaluate the ABI test in patients with CAD. We assumed that all patients screened would be candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban. We assessed the cost of ABI screening at $100 per patient and added additional charges for physician visits ($100) and rivaroxaban cost ($470 per month). We used a 30-day cycle and performed analysis over 35 years. We evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from previous studies and determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) according to our model. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of variables with uncertainty and reported them in a Tornado diagram showing the variables with the greatest effect on the ICER., Results: Our model estimates decision costs to screen or not screen at $94,953 and $82,553, respectively. The QALYs gained from screening was 0.060, generating an ICER of $207,491 per QALY. Factors most influential on the ICER were the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with rivaroxaban and the prohibitively high cost of rivaroxaban. If rivaroxaban cost less than $95 per month, this would make screening cost-effective based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY., Conclusions: According to our model, screening patients with CAD for PAD to start low-dose rivaroxaban is not currently cost-effective due to insufficient reduction in all-cause mortality and high medication costs. Nevertheless, vascular surgeons have a unique opportunity to prescribe or advocate for low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with PAD to improve cardiovascular outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: To validate a set of indicators for monitoring the quality of care of patients with diabetes in 'real-life' practice through its relationship with measurable clinical outcomes and healthcare costs., Methods and Results: A population-based cohort study was carried out by including the 20,635 patients, residents in the Lombardy Region (Italy), who in the year 2012 were newly taken-in-care for diabetes. Adherence with clinical recommendations (i.e., controls for glycated haemoglobin, lipid profile, urine albumin excretion and serum creatinine) was recorded during the first year after the patient was taken-in-care, and categorized according whether he/she complied with none or almost none (0 or 1), just some (2) or all or almost all (3 or 4) the recommendations, respectively denoted as poor, intermediate and high adherence. Short- and long-term complications of diabetes, and healthcare cost incurred by the National Health Service, were assessed during follow-up. Compared with patients with poor adherence, those with intermediate and high adherence respectively showed (i) a delay in outcome occurrence of 13 days (95% CI, -2 to 27) and 23 days (9-38), and (ii) a lower healthcare cost of 54 € and 77 €. In average, a gain of 18 Euros and 15 Euros for each day free from diabetic complication by increasing adherence respectively from poor to intermediate and from poor to high were observed., Conclusion: Close control of patients with diabetes through regular clinical examinations must be considered the cornerstone of national guidance, national audits, and quality improvement incentive schemes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Giovanni Corrao received research support from the European Community (EC), the Italian Agency of Drug (AIFA), and the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR). He took part to a variety of projects that were funded by pharmaceutical companies (i.e., Novartis, GSK, Roche, AMGEN and BMS). He also received honoraria as member of Advisory Board from Roche. Giuseppe Mancia received honoraria for participation as speaker/chairman in national/international meetings from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini Int., Merck, Novartis, Recordati and Servier. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Based on current evidence, one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men using ultrasound evaluation reduces mortality related to AAA rupture and is considered cost-effective, although all-cause mortality reduction still remains in question. In Spain, there is no population screening program for AAA, so the aim of our study was to perform a pilot population screening program in our area to assess feasibility and efficiency of an AAA screening program for men and women., Methods: A population AAA screening pilot program was performed in a Barcelona area, including 400,000 inhabitants. According to inclusion criteria, 4,730 individuals aged 65 years at the moment of the trial were invited for screening (2,089 men and 2,641 women). Primary care doctors, trained in duplex ultrasound abdominal evaluations, performed an abdominal aortic measurement. Individuals with a previous diagnosis of AAA, limited life expectancy, or wrong contact data were excluded. Participation data, aortic diameters, AAA prevalence, and related cardiovascular risk factors were analyzed. The results were used in a cost-utility model to assess the efficiency of the screening program., Results: Participation was 50.3% in men and 44% in women. Eleven patients were excluded because of previously diagnosed AAA. Five new asymptomatic AAA were detected in 65-year-old men (0.5% prevalence), all being active smokers. When considering patients excluded for previous AAA diagnosis, the prevalence in 65-year-old men reached 1.4%. Global AAA prevalence in smoking men reached 2.67%. No AAA was detected in women. Subaneurysmal aorta prevalence in men was 2.9% (n = 29), and in women, it was 0.08% (n = 2). A cost-utility analysis model on screening versus no screening retrieved 13,664€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 10-year horizon and 39,455€ per quality-adjusted life years at a 30-year horizon., Conclusions: AAA population-based screening by ultrasound evaluation in primary care is logistically feasible in our area. Despite that, AAA prevalence is lower than expected in men, and null in women. Cost-utility model results indicate that a local AAA screening program is only efficient in a 30 years' time horizon. Such inefficient results for a population screening make it necessary to consider other strategies such as opportunistic or subgroup screening in our area., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains broadly performed in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), although the lack of evidence. We conduct a real-world evidence (RWE) study to assess the risk of major clinical outcomes and economic impact of routine CAD screening in T2DM individuals at a very high cardiovascular risk., Methods: SCADIAB is a comparative nationwide cohort study using data from the French National Health Data System. The main inclusion criteria are: age ≥ 40 years, DT2 diagnosed for ≥ 7 years, with ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors plus a history of microvascular or macrovascular disease, except CAD. We estimated ≥ 90,000 eligible participants for our study. Data will be extracted from 01/01/2008 to 31/12/2019. Eligible participants will be identified during a first 7-year selection period (2008-2015). Each participant will be assigned either in experimental (CAD screening procedure during the selection period) or control group (no CAD screening) on 01/01/2015, and followed for 5 years. The primary endpoint is the incremental cost per life year saved over 5 years in CAD screening group versus no CAD screening. The main secondary endpoints are: total 5-year direct costs of each strategy; incidence of major cardiovascular (acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization for heart failure, coronary revascularization or all-cause death), cerebrovascular (hospitalization for transient ischemic attack, stroke, or carotid revascularization) and lower-limb events (peripheral artery disease, ischemic diabetic foot, lower-limb revascularization or amputation); and the budget impact for the French Insurance system to promote the cost-effective strategy. Analyses will be adjusted for a high-dimension propensity score taking into account known and unknown confounders. SCADIAB has been funded by the French Ministry of Health and the protocol has been approved by the French ethic authorities. Data management and analyses will start in the second half of 2021., Discussion: SCADIAB is a large and contemporary RWE study that will assess the economic and clinical impacts of routine CAD screening in T2DM people at a very high cardiovascular risk. It will also evaluate the clinical practice regarding CAD screening and help to make future recommendations and optimize the use of health care resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04534530 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04534530 ).

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of decentralised diagnostic programme for hepatitis B virus (HBV) implemented in Tamil Nadu, South India with specific focus on a selected key population at increased risk of HBV., Methods: A combination of decision tree and Markov model was developed to compare cost-effectiveness of the new and standard strategy. Cost and health outcomes were calculated based on the proportion of cohort in each respective health state. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention and comparator strategies were calculated. The model parameter uncertainties were evaluated by sensitivity analysis., Results: Considering decentralised HBV diagnosis followed by early treatment and vaccination for negatives for a cohort of 1000 population resulted in 505 QALYs gained and incremental cost-saving of 180749 ($2620). The decentralised diagnostic strategy could avert 294 deaths, gain 293 life years and reduce out-of-pocket expenditure of 3274 ($47) per person for HBV management., Conclusion: Decentralised HBV diagnosis followed by early treatment and vaccination for negatives in Tamil Nadu can save lives and reduce out-of-pocket expenditures compared to standard strategy., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) is a manifestation of atherosclerosis characterized by diminished perfusion of the limb and a state of dysmetabolism. The asymptomatic PAD phenotype is a relatively recent classification. It is unknown how many people currently live with asymptomatic PAD because there are no universal screening recommendations for patients at risk for PAD. Patients with asymptomatic PAD suffer from a similar risk profile of morbidity and mortality as their counterparts with claudication. Despite this increased risk, there is a dearth of clinical investigations into therapies that specifically benefit the asymptomatic PAD population. At present, current pharmacotherapies that have been studied in PAD patient populations do not stratify by symptom status. We believe that further investigation of the impact of existing therapies in this unique population presents an opportunity to reduce morbidity and mortality due to PAD. This can only be achieved in combination with wide-spread adoption of screening for asymptomatic PAD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Behroozian has no financial disclosures to make. Dr. Beckman reports consulting income from Amgen, Bayer, and Janssen. Ownership in Janacare and EMX., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Screening psoriasis patients for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is intended to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of screening for PsA in patients with psoriasis in Canada., Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in psoriasis patients. The screening tools included the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation, and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (EARP) questionnaires. States of health were defined by disability levels as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. State transitions were modeled based on annual disease progression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty and to test model assumptions., Results: Screening was cost-effective compared to no screening. The EARP tool had the lowest total cost ($2,000 per patient per year saved compared to no screening) and the highest total QALYs (additional 0.18 per patient compared to no screening). The results were most sensitive to test accuracy and the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). No screening was cost-effective (at $50,000 per QALY) relative to screening when DMARDs failed to slow disease progression., Conclusion: If early therapy with DMARDs delays biologic treatment, implementing screening in patients with psoriasis in Canada is expected to represent a cost savings of $220 million per year and improve the quality of life., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Active case finding (ACF) may be valuable in tuberculosis (TB) control, but questions remain about its optimum implementation in different settings. For example, smear microscopy misses up to half of TB cases, yet is cheap and detects the most infectious TB cases. What, then, is the incremental value of using more sensitive and specific, yet more costly, tests such as Xpert MTB/RIF in ACF in a high-burden setting?, Methods and Findings: We constructed a dynamic transmission model of TB, calibrated to be consistent with an urban slum population in India. We applied this model to compare the potential cost and impact of 2 hypothetical approaches following initial symptom screening: (i) 'moderate accuracy' testing employing a microscopy-like test (i.e., lower cost but also lower accuracy) for bacteriological confirmation and (ii) 'high accuracy' testing employing an Xpert-like test (higher cost but also higher accuracy, while also detecting rifampicin resistance). Results suggest that ACF using a moderate-accuracy test could in fact cost more overall than using a high-accuracy test. Under an illustrative budget of US$20 million in a slum population of 2 million, high-accuracy testing would avert 1.14 (95% credible interval 0.75-1.99, with p = 0.28) cases relative to each case averted by moderate-accuracy testing. Test specificity is a key driver: High-accuracy testing would be significantly more impactful at the 5% significance level, as long as the high-accuracy test has specificity at least 3 percentage points greater than the moderate-accuracy test. Additional factors promoting the impact of high-accuracy testing are that (i) its ability to detect rifampicin resistance can lead to long-term cost savings in second-line treatment and (ii) its higher sensitivity contributes to the overall cases averted by ACF. Amongst the limitations of this study, our cost model has a narrow focus on the commodity costs of testing and treatment; our estimates should not be taken as indicative of the overall cost of ACF. There remains uncertainty about the true specificity of tests such as smear and Xpert-like tests in ACF, relating to the accuracy of the reference standard under such conditions., Conclusions: Our results suggest that cheaper diagnostics do not necessarily translate to less costly ACF, as any savings from the test cost can be strongly outweighed by factors including false-positive TB treatment, reduced sensitivity, and foregone savings in second-line treatment. In resource-limited settings, it is therefore important to take all of these factors into account when designing cost-effective strategies for ACF., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Patients with coarctation of the aorta have a high prevalence of intracranial aneurysms (IA) and suffer subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) at younger ages than the general population. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend IA screening, but appropriate age and interval of screening and its effectiveness remain a critical knowledge gap., Methods and Results: To evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance angiography screening for IA in patients with coarctation of the aorta, we developed and calibrated a Markov model to match published IA prevalence estimates. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes included lifetime cumulative incidence of prophylactic IA treatment and mortality and SAH deaths prevented. Using a payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and a willingness-to-pay of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, we applied a 3% annual discounting rate to costs and effects and performed 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In a simulated cohort of 10 000 patients, no screening resulted in a 10.1% lifetime incidence of SAH and 183 SAH-related deaths. Screening at ages 10, 20, and 30 years led to 978 prophylactic treatments for unruptured aneurysms, 19 procedure-related deaths, and 65 SAH-related deaths. Screening at ages 10, 20, and 30 years was cost-effective compared with screening at ages 10 and 20 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $106 841/quality-adjusted life-year). Uncertainty in the outcome after aneurysm treatment and quality of life after SAH influenced the preferred screening strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, screening at ages 10, 20, and 30 years was cost-effective in 41% of simulations and at ages 10 and 20 in 59% of simulations., Conclusions: Our model supports the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommendation to screen patients with coarctation of the aorta for IA and suggests screening at ages 10 and 20 or at 10, 20, and 30 years would extend life and be cost-effective.

Hospital-acquired infections are a known menace to the primary disease, for which a patient is admitted. These infections are twenty times more common in developing countries than in the developed ones. Surveillance for colonised patients can be passive or active process. In many hospitals, active surveillance culture for certain sentinel organisms followed by contact precautions for the same is an important part of infection control policy. Specific measures can be taken on early detection of multidrug-resistant organism, allowing prevention of widespread transmission in hospitals. Cultures are the most conventional and economical microbiological method of detection. The cost of active surveillance is a major challenge, especially for developing nations. These nations lack basic infrastructure and have logistic issues. The guidelines regarding this are not very clearly delineated for developing countries. Each hospital has its own challenges and the process is to be tailor-made accordingly. The following review delineates the various aspects of active surveillance for the colonisation of various organisms and the advantages and disadvantages of the same., Competing Interests: None

Aims: To examine the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID), combined with medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and syringe-service programs (SSP), to tackle the increasing HCV epidemic in the United States., Design: HCV transmission and disease progression models with cost-effectiveness analysis using a health-care perspective., Setting: Rural Perry County, KY (PC) and urban San Francisco, CA (SF), USA. Compared with PC, SF has a greater proportion of PWID with access to MAT or SSP. HCV treatment of PWID is negligible in both settings., Participants: PWID data were collected between 1998 and 2015 from Social Networks Among Appalachian People, U Find Out, Urban Health Study and National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System studies., Interventions and Comparator: Three intervention scenarios modeled: baseline-existing SSP and MAT coverage with HCV screening and treatment with direct-acting antiviral for ex-injectors only as per standard of care; intervention 1-scale-up of SSP and MAT without changes to treatment; and intervention 2-scale-up as intervention 1 combined with HCV screening and treatment for current PWID., Measurements: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Findings: For both settings, intervention 2 is preferred to intervention 1 and the appropriate comparator for intervention 2 is the baseline scenario. Relative to baseline, for PC intervention 2 averts 1852 more HCV infections, increases QALYS by 3095, costs $21.6 million more and has an ICER of $6975/QALY. For SF, intervention 2 averts 36 473 more HCV infections, increases QALYs by 7893, costs $872 million more and has an ICER of $11 044/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of intervention 2 was robust to several sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: Hepatitis C screening and treatment for people who inject drugs, combined with medication-assisted treatment and syringe-service programs, is a cost-effective strategy for reducing hepatitis C burden in the United States., (© 2019 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Introduction: 'One-off' systematic case-finding for COPD using a respiratory screening questionnaire is more effective and cost-effective than routine care at identifying new cases. However, it is not known whether early diagnosis and treatment is beneficial in the longer term. We estimated the long-term cost-effectiveness of a regular case-finding programme in primary care., Methods: A Markov decision analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 3-yearly systematic case-finding programme targeted to ever smokers aged ≥50 years with the current routine diagnostic process in UK primary care. Patient-level data on case-finding pathways was obtained from a large randomised controlled trial. Information on the natural history of COPD and treatment effects was obtained from a linked COPD cohort, UK primary care database and published literature. The discounted lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated from a health service perspective., Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of systematic case-finding versus current care was £16 596 per additional QALY gained, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The base case result was robust to multiple one-way sensitivity analyses. The main drivers were response rate to the initial screening questionnaire and attendance rate for the confirmatory spirometry test., Discussion: Regular systematic case-finding for COPD using a screening questionnaire in primary care is likely to be cost-effective in the long-term despite uncertainties in treatment effectiveness. Further knowledge of the natural history of case-found patients and the effectiveness of their management will improve confidence to implement such an approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KKC reports grants from Pfizer China, outside of the submitted work. RS reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Polyphor, grants from CSL Behring, grants from Talecris, and personal fees from Dyax, outside of the submitted work. AMT reports grants from Linde REAL fund, grants from Alpha 1 Foundation, non-financial support from GSK, non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi and personal fees and non-financial support from AZ, outside of the submitted work. SJ, PA, REJ, KKC, MM KJ, RR, DF, SS, AD, BGC, RS, JGA and SG report grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. Other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the wake of the West African Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak of 2014-2016, thousands of EVD survivors began to manifest a constellation of systemic and ophthalmic sequelae. Besides systemic arthralgias, myalgias, and abdominal pain, patients were developing uveitis, a spectrum of inflammatory eye disease leading to eye pain, redness, and vision loss. To investigate this emerging eye disease, resources and equipment were needed to promptly evaluate this sight-threatening condition, particularly given our identification of Ebola virus in the ocular fluid of an EVD survivor during disease convalescence., Methodology/principal Findings: A collaborative effort involving ophthalmologists, infectious disease specialists, eye care nurses, and physician leadership at Eternal Love Winning Africa (ELWA) Hospital in Liberia led to the development of a unique screening eye clinic for EVD survivors to screen, treat, and refer patients for more definitive care. Medications, resources, and equipment were procured from a variety of sources including discount websites, donations, purchasing with humanitarian discounts, and limited retail to develop a screening eye clinic and rapidly perform detailed ophthalmologic exams. Findings were documented in 96 EVD survivors to inform public health officials and eye care providers of the emerging disease process. Personal protective equipment was tailored to the environment and implications of EBOV persistence within intraocular fluid., Conclusions/significance: A screening eye clinic was feasible and effective for the rapid screening, care, and referral of EVD survivors with uveitis and retinal disease. Patients were screened promptly for an initial assessment of the disease process, which has informed other efforts within West Africa related to immediate patient care needs and our collective understanding of EVD sequelae. Further attention is needed to understand the pathogensis and treatment of ophthalmic sequelae given recent EVD outbreaks in West Africa and ongoing outbreak within Democratic Republic of Congo., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Aims: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a catastrophic and potentially life threatening complication following arthroplasty. In addition to the resulting impact on patient morbidity and mortality, PJI is associated with significant financial cost, which is estimated at £21,937 per case. Methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common isolate in PJI and colonisation is a proven risk factor for subsequent infection. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine if MSSA screening and decolonisation reduced MSSA PJI rate in primary joint replacement and (2) to determine cost effectiveness of such a screening program., Methods: Pre-operative screening for MSSA was introduced in our institution in 2010. All MSSA positive patients attending for elective arthroplasty were prescribed Octenisan body wash and nasal Bactroban for use 5 days prior to procedure, and five days after. Infection data was collected prospectively and compared with a control group from before., Results: Between 2007 and 2014, 12,910 primary arthroplasties (5917 hip, 6993 knee) were performed. There were 3593 in the pre-screening group and 9318 in the post-screening group. Pre-screening PJI MSSA rate was 0.75% which reduced to 0.25% post screening introduction (p < 0.0001). Overall PJI rate fell from 1.92% to 1.41% (p = 0.03). The screening program was most effective in MSSA prevention in total hip arthroplasty (3% to 1.5%, p = 0.002) and significant in the multivariate analysis. Following the introduction of the screening programme 47 PJIs were avoided, with a cost per infection prevented of £1893., Conclusion: The MSSA screening and eradication protocol used in our institution was effective at reducing rates of MSSA PJI. Furthermore, it resulted in significant savings when compared to the cost of prevented infections., (Copyright © 2018 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend one-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for persons born 1945-1965 and targeted testing for high-risk persons. This strategy targets HCV testing to a prevalent population at high risk for HCV morbidity and mortality, but does not include younger populations with high incidence. To address this gap and improve access to HCV testing, age-based strategies should be considered., Methods: We used a simulation of HCV to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCV testing strategies: 1) standard of care (SOC) - recommendation for one-time testing for all persons born 1945-1965, 2) recommendation for one-time testing for adults ≥40 years (≥40 strategy), 3) ≥30 years (≥30 strategy), and 4) ≥18 years (≥18 strategy). All strategies assumed targeted testing of high-risk persons. Inputs were derived from national databases, observational cohorts and clinical trials. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and cost-effectiveness., Results: Expanded age-based testing strategies increased US population lifetime case identification and cure rates. Greatest increases were observed in the ≥18 strategy. Compared to the SOC, this strategy resulted in an estimated 256,000 additional infected persons identified and 280,000 additional cures at the lowest cost per QALY gained (ICER = $28,000/QALY)., Conclusions: In addition to risk-based testing, one-time HCV testing of persons 18 and older appears to be cost-effective, leads to improved clinical outcomes and identifies more persons with HCV than the current birth cohort recommendations. These findings could be considered for future recommendation revisions.

Background: High hepatitis C virus (HCV) rates have been reported in young people who inject drugs (PWID). We evaluated the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of testing among youth seen in communities with a high overall number of reported HCV cases., Methods: We developed a decision analytic model to project quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs (2016 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 9 strategies for 1-time testing among 15- to 30-year-olds seen at urban community health centers. Strategies differed in 3 ways: targeted vs routine testing, rapid finger stick vs standard venipuncture, and ordered by physician vs by counselor/tester using standing orders. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate uncertainty., Results: Compared to targeted risk-based testing (current standard of care), routine testing increased the lifetime medical cost by $80 and discounted QALYs by 0.0013 per person. Across all strategies, rapid testing provided higher QALYs at a lower cost per QALY gained and was always preferred. Counselor-initiated routine rapid testing was associated with an ICER of $71000/QALY gained. Results were sensitive to offer and result receipt rates. Counselor-initiated routine rapid testing was cost-effective (ICER <$100000/QALY) unless the prevalence of PWID was <0.59%, HCV prevalence among PWID was <16%, reinfection rate was >26 cases per 100 person-years, or reflex confirmatory testing followed all reactive venipuncture diagnostics. In PSA, routine rapid testing was the optimal strategy in 90% of simulations., Conclusions: Routine rapid HCV testing among 15- to 30-year-olds may be cost-effective when the prevalence of PWID is >0.59%., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)