METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis used decision tree and Markov models to estimate lifetime costs and health benefits from societal perspective, based on a cohort of 509 metabolic syndrome patients in Thailand. Data were obtained from published literatures and Thai database. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2014 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with discount rate of 3%. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results.
RESULTS: The ICER of ultrasonography screening of 50-year-old metabolic syndrome patients with intensive weight reduction program was 958 USD/QALY gained when compared with no screening. The probability of being cost-effective was 67% using willingness-to-pay threshold in Thailand (4848 USD/QALY gained). Screening before 45 years was cost saving while screening at 45 to 64 years was cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with metabolic syndromes, ultrasonography screening for NAFLD with intensive weight reduction program is a cost-effective program in Thailand. Study can be used as part of evidence-informed decision making.
TRANSLATIONAL IMPACTS: Findings could contribute to changes of NAFLD diagnosis practice in settings where economic evidence is used as part of decision-making process. Furthermore, study design, model structure, and input parameters could also be used for future research addressing similar questions.
METHODS: A total of 509 patients with MetS were recruited. All were diagnosed by clinicians with ultrasonography-confirmed whether they were patients with NAFLD. Patients were randomly divided into derivation (n=400) and validation (n=109) cohort. To develop the risk score, clinical risk indicators measured at the time of recruitment were built by logistic regression. Regression coefficients were transformed into item scores and added up to a total score. A risk scoring scheme was developed from clinical predictors: BMI ≥25, AST/ALT ≥1, ALT ≥40, type 2 diabetes mellitus and central obesity. The scoring scheme was applied in validation cohort to test the performance.
RESULTS: The scheme explained, by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), 76.8% of being NAFLD with good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 =4.35; P=.629). The positive likelihood ratio of NAFLD in patients with low risk (scores below 3) and high risk (scores 5 and over) were 2.32 (95% CI: 1.90-2.82) and 7.77 (95% CI: 2.47-24.47) respectively. When applied in validation cohort, the score showed good performance with AuROC 76.7%, and illustrated 84%, and 100% certainty in low- and high-risk groups respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple and non-invasive scoring scheme of five predictors provides good prediction indices for NAFLD in MetS patients. This scheme may help clinicians in order to take further appropriate action.