Cost-effectiveness of various diagnostic approaches for occupational asthma.
BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of occupational asthma (OA) by specific inhalation challenge (SIC) can be costly and is not always available. The use of sputum testing to avoid this in some patients may be a more cost-effective alternative.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the cost-effectiveness of SIC with serial measurements of sputum cell counts (sputum testing) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) monitoring.


METHODS
Clinical data and testing costs for OA in 49 patients were collected during a previously published trial, modelled and compared using TreeAge Pro. Clinical outcome was the percentage of accurately diagnosed patients, using SIC as the gold standard. The PEF approach used the most accurate assessment of five experts who were blinded to SIC results. Differences in the proportion of eosinophils during periods on and off work were used for the sputum testing approach and in PEF/sputum for the combined approach. Unit costs were estimated from charges in Canadian hospitals. Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way analyses, and by probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation technique.


RESULTS
The PEF approach had an estimated accuracy of 52% and cost $365 per patient tested. Compared with PEF monitoring, sputum testing was more accurate and cost an estimated $255 for each additional OA patient correctly diagnosed. SIC costs per additional correct diagnosis were $11,032 compared with sputum testing and $6,458 compared with PEF monitoring. The combined PEF/sputum testing approach was not cost-effective in the base case analysis, but cannot be excluded according to probabilistic sensitivity analyses.


CONCLUSIONS
Although SIC remains the reference test to diagnose OA, when this test is not available, sputum testing is a cost-effective alternative to PEF for diagnosis of OA.
Kennedy
Wendy A
WA
Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Girard
Frédéric
F
Chaboillez
Simone
S
Cartier
André
A
Côté
Johanne
J
Hargreave
Frederick
F
Labrecque
Manon
M
Malo
Jean-Luc
JL
Tarlo
Susan M
SM
Redlich
Carrie A
CA
Lemière
Catherine
C
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001249:Asthma / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics*; D001992:Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid; D002170:Canada; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004804:Eosinophils / Q000166:cytology; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D008499:Medical Records; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D009784:Occupational Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000191:economics*; D010366:Peak Expiratory Flow Rate; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013183:Sputum / Q000166:cytology*; D017132:Workplace
Thorax. 1992 Jan;47(1):25-9
1539140
N Engl J Med. 1993 Mar 18;328(11):772-8
8437598
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1995 Sep;96(3):295-301
7560631
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004 Oct 15;170(8):845-50
15271693
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 Mar 1;167(5):787-97
12598220
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003 Apr;111(4):692-4
12704344
Chest. 2002 Jan;121(1):264-72
11796461
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Dec;162(6):2058-62
11112114
Stat Med. 1999 Dec 15;18(23):3245-62
10602149
Chest. 1995 Mar;107(3):634-41
7874929
Health Econ. 1994 Sep-Oct;3(5):309-19
7827647
Eur Respir J. 1994 Jan;7(1):153-60
8143815
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Aug;154(2 Pt 1):308-17
8756799
JAMA. 1998 Apr 1;279(13):1015-7
9533501
Can Respir J. 1998 Jul-Aug;5(4):289-300
9753529
Eur Respir J. 1999 Mar;13(3):482-8
10232413