0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Academia and the Profession |

Test-Treatment Strategies for Patients Suspected of Having Lyme Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Graham Nichol, MD; David T. Dennis, MD; Allen C. Steere, MD; Robert Lightfoot, MD; George Wells, PhD; Beverley Shea, BScN; and Peter Tugwell, MD
[+] Article and Author Information

From Ottawa Civic Hospital, University of Ottawa, and Ottawa General Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado; University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky; and New England Medical Center and Tufts University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Karen Kuntz, ScD, for interim advice, and Gary Bryant, MD, Ray Dattwyler, MD, and Len Sigal, MD, for assistance in the estimation of utilities. Requests for Reprints: Peter Tugwell, MD, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada. Current Author Addresses: Drs. Nichol and Wells and Ms. Shea: Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Ottawa Civic Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4E9, Canada.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(1):37-48. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-128-1-199801010-00007
Text Size: A A A

Purpose: To examine the cost-effectiveness of test-treatment strategies for patients suspected of having Lyme disease.

Data Sources: The medical literature was searched for information on outcomes and costs. Expert opinion was sought for information on utilities.

Study Selection: Articles that described patient population, diagnostic criteria, dose and duration of therapy, and criteria for assessment of outcomes.

Data Extraction: The decision analysis evaluated the following strategies: 1) no testing-no treatment; 2) testing with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] followed by antibiotic treatment of patients with positive results; 3) two-step testing with ELISA followed by Western blot and antibiotic treatment for patients with positive results on either test; and 4) empirical antibiotic therapy. Three patient scenarios were considered: myalgic symptoms, rash resembling erythema migrans, and recurrent oligoarticular inflammatory arthritis. Results were calculated as costs per quality-adjusted life-year and were subjected to sensitivity analysis. Adjustment was made for the diagnostic value of common clinical features of Lyme disease.

Data Synthesis: For myalgic symptoms without other features suggestive of Lyme disease, the no testing-no treatment strategy was most economically attractive (that is, had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio). For rash, empirical antibiotic therapy was less costly and more effective than other strategies. For oligoarticular arthritis with a history of rash and tick bite, two-step testing was associated with the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio. Testing with ELISA and empirical antibiotic therapy cost an additional $880 000 and $34 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. For oligoarticular arthritis with one or no other features suggestive of Lyme disease, two-step testing was most economically attractive.

Conclusions: Neither testing nor antibiotic treatment is cost-effective if the pretest probability of Lyme disease is low. Empirical antibiotic therapy is recommended if the pretest probability is high, and two-step testing is recommended if the pretest probability is intermediate.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1.
Decision tree.Figure 1

The square at left represents the choice among the four test-treatment strategies. Circles represent chance outcomes; triangles indicate the health states of patients after testing or treatment. ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. continues on page 41.

Grahic Jump LocationGrahic Jump Location

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Journal Club
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)