Article Text
Abstract
Background The randomised Assessment of Treatment using Panel Assay of Cardiac markers (RATPAC) trial showed that diagnostic assessment with a point-of-care biomarker panel increased successful discharges among patients presenting to hospital with acute chest pain. We aimed to determine whether point-of-care panel assessment reduced healthcare costs and whether it was likely to be cost-effective.
Methods Economic analysis was undertaken using individual patient resource use data from the RATPAC trial (n=2263) and health utility measured on the EQ-5D at one and 3 months. Resource use was valued using national unit costs. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D scores using the trapezium rule. Mean costs and QALYs accrued after point-of-care and standard care were compared and cost-effectiveness estimated in terms of probability of dominance and incremental cost per QALY.
Results Point-of-care panel assessment was associated with higher emergency department costs, coronary care costs and cardiac intervention costs, but lower general inpatient costs. Mean costs per patient were £1217 with point-of-care versus £1006 with standard care (p=0.047), while mean QALYs were 0.158 versus 0.161 (p=0.250). The probability of standard care being dominant (ie, cheaper and more effective) was 0.888, while the probability of the point-of-care panel being dominant was 0.004. These probabilities were not markedly altered by sensitivity analysis varying the costs of the point-of-care panel and excluding intensive care costs.
Conclusion Point-of-care panel assessment does not reduce costs despite reducing admissions and may even increase costs. It is unlikely to be considered a cost-effective use of national healthcare resources.