No abstract

CVD is a leading public health problem. Our study is the first to assess the economic burden of CVD across the EU, and our results should help policy makers evaluate policy impact and prioritize research expenditures. However, because of data unavailability, our study has important limitations, which highlight the need for more accurate and comparable CVD-specific information.

BackgroundThe English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme was established in 2003. Eligible people are invited annually for digital retinal photography screening. Those found to have potentially sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) are referred to surveillance clinics or to Hospital Eye Services.ObjectivesTo determine whether personalised screening intervals are cost-effective.DesignRisk factors were identified in Gloucestershire, UK using survival modelling. A probabilistic decision hidden (unobserved) Markov model with a misgrading matrix was developed. This informed estimation of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients without STDR. Two personalised risk stratification models were employed: two screening episodes (SEs) (low, medium or high risk) or one SE with clinical information (low, medium–low, medium–high or high risk). The risk factor models were validated in other populations.SettingGloucestershire, Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia (all UK).ParticipantsPeople with diabetes in Gloucestershire with risk stratification model validation using data from Nottinghamshire, South London and East Anglia.Main outcome measuresPersonalised risk-based algorithm for screening interval; cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals.ResultsData were obtained in Gloucestershire from 12,790 people with diabetes with known risk factors to derive the risk estimation models, from 15,877 people to inform the uptake of screening and from 17,043 people to inform the health-care resource-usage costs. Two stratification models were developed: one using only results from previous screening events and one using previous screening and some commonly available GP data. Both models were capable of differentiating groups at low and high risk of development of STDR. The rate of progression to STDR was 5 per 1000 person-years (PYs) in the lowest decile of risk and 75 per 1000 PYs in the highest decile. In the absence of personalised risk stratification, the most cost-effective screening interval was to screen all patients every 3 years, with a 46% probability of this being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Using either risk stratification models, screening patients at low risk every 5 years was the most cost-effective option, with a probability of 99-100% at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. For the medium-risk groups screening every 3 years had a probability of 43 –48% while screening high-risk groups every 2 years was cost-effective with a probability of 55–59%.ConclusionsThe study found that annual screening of all patients for STDR was not cost-effective. Screening this entire cohort every 3 years was most likely to be cost-effective. When personalised intervals are applied, screening those in our low-risk groups every 5 years was found to be cost-effective. Screening high-risk groups every 2 years further improved the cost-effectiveness of the programme. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental costs and in the incremental QALYs, particularly with regard to implications of an increasing proportion of maculopathy cases receiving intravitreal injection rather than laser treatment. Future work should focus on improving the understanding of risk, validating in further populations and investigating quality issues in imaging and assessment including the potential for automated image grading.Study registrationIntegrated Research Application System project number 118959.Funding detailsThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

We looked at the economic costs of bladder cancer across the European Union (EU). We found bladder cancer to cost €4.9 billion in 2012, with health care accounting for €2.9 billion. Our study provides data that can be used to inform affordable cancer care in the EU.

Introduction: In 2017, 1.5 million people were diagnosed with stroke, 9 million were living with stroke and 0.4 million died because of stroke in 32 European countries. We estimate the economic burden of stroke across these countries in 2017. Patients and methods: In a population-based cost analysis, we evaluated the cost of stroke. We estimated overall health and social care costs from expenditure on care in the primary, outpatient, emergency, inpatient and nursing/ residential care settings, and pharmaceuticals. Additionally, we estimated the costs of unpaid care provided by relatives or friends of patients, lost earnings due to premature death and costs associated with individuals who temporarily or permanently left employment because of illness. Results: In 2017 stroke cost the 32 European countries under analysis e60 billion, with health care accounting for e27 billion (45%), representing 1.7% of health expenditure. Adding the costs of social care (e5 billion), annual strokerelated care costs were equivalent to e59 per citizen, varying from e11 in Bulgaria to e140 in Finland. Productivity losses cost e12 billion, equally split between early death and lost working days. A total of e1.3 billion hours of informal care were provided to stroke survivors, costing Europe e16 billion. Conclusion: Our study provides a snapshot of the economic consequences posed by stroke to 32 European countries in 2017. It also strengthens and updates the evidence we have gathered over the last 15 years, indicating that the costs of stroke are rising, partly due to an ageing population.