ArticleBMJ open2025
Early-stage cost-utility analysis of novel diagnostic tests for giant cell arteritis: a modelling study in UK secondary care.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify the key characteristics required for hypothetical diagnostic tests to be cost-effective for diagnosing giant cell arteritis (GCA).
designCombined decision tree and Markov cohort state-transition models were used to evaluate the cost-utility of new diagnostic tests compared with the standard pathways of biopsy and clinical judgement, with and without ultrasound. Input parameters were derived from secondary data and expert opinions. The analysis adopted a lifetime horizon and the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bivariate deterministic sensitivity analyses identified the maximum test price at varying diagnostic performance levels, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses over 5000 simulations provided 95% CIs.
settingUK.
participantsPatients with symptoms suggestive of GCA.
main outcome measurePercentage of GCA-related and glucocorticoid-related complications avoided, maximum test price and incremental QALYs at each sensitivity and specificity combination.
resultsA biomarker test incorporated into a hypothetical diagnostic pathway with perfect accuracy (100% sensitivity and specificity) can be priced up to £7245 (95% CI £5763 to £8727) and remain cost-effective compared with a standard pathway of temporal artery biopsy and clinical judgement. Against a standard pathway including ultrasound, the biomarker test can be priced up to £8606 (£6741 to £10 471). The test's value was more strongly influenced by improvements in specificity than in sensitivity. The maximum prices decreased with earlier starting age, lower clinician adherence, shorter time horizons and shorter durations of glucocorticoid-related effects.
conclusionsThe study highlights the potential for hypothetical tests to improve GCA diagnosis and reduce glucocorticoid toxicity, while demonstrating their market viability for use within the NHS. It also illustrates how early-stage economic models can provide valuable insights into potential cost-effectiveness to inform the test development process.
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.