ArticleBMJ open2019
Economic evaluation of a novel genetic screening test for risk of venous thromboembolism compared with standard of care in women considering combined hormonal contraception in Switzerland.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the Pill Protect (PP) genetic screening test for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk compared with standard of care (SoC), for women considering combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) in Switzerland.
methodsA two-part microsimulation model was developed to estimate VTE events, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the PP and SoC strategies. In the first portion of the model, a cohort of 1 million Swiss first-time seekers of a CHC were simulated. It was determined whether each women would receive a CHC or non-CHC by using prescribing patterns elicited from a modified Delphi study. These results formed the basis of the SoC strategy. For the PP strategy, a PP test was included and the results considered in addition to SoC practice. Each woman then entered a Markov model that captured morbidity and mortality over a lifetime. The risk of having a VTE was derived from the risk algorithm that underpins the PP test. The remaining model inputs relating to population characteristics, costs, health resource use, mortality and utilities were derived from published studies or national sources. The model was validated and calibrated to align with population-based studies. Extensive uncertainty analyses were conducted.
resultsFrom a Swiss health system perspective, the PP strategy in comparison with the SoC strategy generated an additional CHF 231, and gained 0.003 QALYs per woman, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 76 610 per QALY gained. Assuming a threshold of CHF 100 000 per QALY gained, the PP strategy is likely to be cost effective. Our results were generally robust to variations in the parameter values.
conclusionsThe PP test may be cost effective in Switzerland for screening women seeking CHCs for their risk of VTE based on the current evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.