Cost effectiveness of adopting a postoperative delirium risk prediction tool with non-pharmacological delirium prevention interventions for surgical patients - Graves, Nicholas; Boettger, Soenke; Zozmann, Martin; Franziska, Maja; Stocker, Reto (medRxiv, 2024)
Background Postoperative delirium arises among older surgical patients. Screening followed by prevention efforts are recommended. A risk prediction tool has been developed yet the performance and whether adoption is cost-effective are unknown.Objective To estimate the expected change to ‘total costs’ and ‘health benefits’ measured by quality adjusted life years from a decision to adopt PIPRA plus for screening purpose to find at-risk individuals who are then offered non-pharmacological interventions to reduce risks of postoperative delirium.Design Cost effectiveness modelling study that draws on a range of relevant data sources.Setting Swiss healthcare system.Subjects Surgical inpatients aged 60 or older, excluding cardiac and intracranial surgeries.Methods A decision tree model was used to capture the events likely to impact on cost and health outcomes. Information was harvested from a prospective before-after study and augmented with other relevant data sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to reveal the probability that adoption was cost effective against a stated maximum willingness to pay threshold for decision making in Switzerland.Results Patients in both phases of the study were similar. Costs were lower by 3075CHF (SD 997) per patient with the adoption of the risk screening tool and there was a modest gain to health benefits of 0.01 QALY (SD 0.026). There was a 100% probability that adoption would be cost saving and a 91% probability that adoption would be cost-effective.Conclusions We provide early-stage evidence that a decision to adopt the risk screening tool and offer risk reducing interventions will be cost-effective.Key points Many surgical patients suffer from post operative delirium.Screening and early intervention can reduce risks and improve outcomes.It is important to establish whether screening and early intervention is cost effective.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNG received consulting fees from PIPRA to prepare this paperAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:For this paper used summary data from a clinical study and published data. The clinical study has an ethics waiver (Req-2023-00307) from the Zurich kantonal ethics committee, which covered the original data collection and analyses.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript