Imperial College London
Alternate

DrPinarUlug

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Honorary Research Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 3311 7307p.ulug Website

 
 
//

Location

 

North Wing - 4N12Charing Cross HospitalCharing Cross Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Sweeting:2018:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31222-4,
author = {Sweeting, MJ and Masconi, KL and Jones, E and Ulug, P and Glover, MJ and Michaels, JA and Bown, MJ and Powell, JT and Thompson, SG},
doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31222-4},
journal = {Lancet},
pages = {487--495},
title = {Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31222-4},
volume = {392},
year = {2018}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30000 (95% CI 12000-87000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23000 (9500-71000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: B
AU  - Sweeting,MJ
AU  - Masconi,KL
AU  - Jones,E
AU  - Ulug,P
AU  - Glover,MJ
AU  - Michaels,JA
AU  - Bown,MJ
AU  - Powell,JT
AU  - Thompson,SG
DO  - 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31222-4
EP  - 495
PY  - 2018///
SP  - 487
TI  - Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
T2  - Lancet
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31222-4
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30057105
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/61628
VL  - 392
ER  -
Download