Cost-effectiveness analysis of three algorithms for diagnosing primary ciliary dyskinesia: a simulation study

Table 3 Diagnostic costs per year, identified PCD cases per year (mean and 95% Confidence Interval)

Diagnostic Algorithm	Diagnostic Cost per annum in thousand €	PCD cases identified per annum	ICER (€/PCD case identified)
Diagnostic Algorithm	Diagnostic Cost per annum in thousand €	PCD cases identified per annum	Compared to No screening	Compared to next most effective algorithm^a
Do nothing	0	0	-	-
NO + HSVM	136 (109–177)	273 (105–335)	653 (385–1110)	653 (385–1110)
NO + TEM	150 (118–208)	198 (76–242)	975 (595–1605)	Dominated
NO/HSVM + TEM	209 (173–261)	313 (231–373)	678 (508–1003)	2097 (770–3233)

^aICER compared to next less expensive algorithm omits from consideration those algorithms that are “dominated” (make health worse and cost more). Hence, we compare NO/HSVM+TEM (last row) to NO+HSVM (2nd row) and not to NO+TEM (3rd row) because NO+TEM is dominated (it costs more than NO+HSVM but identifies fewer cases)

ISSN: 1750-1172