Economic evaluations of screening and case-finding for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): a systematic review.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Yiwen Fan, Qiushi Chen, Hexi Sun, Till Bärnighausen, Chen Wang, Ting Yang, Simiao Chen
{"title":"Economic evaluations of screening and case-finding for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): a systematic review.","authors":"Yiwen Fan, Qiushi Chen, Hexi Sun, Till Bärnighausen, Chen Wang, Ting Yang, Simiao Chen","doi":"10.1038/s41533-025-00467-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes significant health and economic burdens globally. Screening and case-finding strategies are increasingly recognized as critical methods to enhance early diagnosis and management of COPD. It is important to understand the economic impact and cost-effectiveness of these strategies to inform the population health policies and real-world practice. In this study, we aim to summarize and compare the economic evaluations of COPD screening and case-finding strategies. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and NHS economic databases for all published studies up to April 2025 that reported economic outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, budget impact, or cost analysis, related to screening and case-finding of COPD. Data extraction included study type, target population, methods, cost perspectives, and outcome measures. Findings were synthesized narratively. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024516534). We identified 18 eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 11 empirical and 7 modeling studies. A range of screening and case-finding approaches were evaluated, with most studies (n = 16) employing questionnaires either as standalone tools (n = 14) or for pre-screening purposes before the portable spirometer test (n = 8). Portable spirometers were also commonly used (n = 10). The economic outcome measures varied across studies, including cost per additional case detected, cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained, and program-level budget impact. Healthcare sector and payer's perspectives were the most commonly adopted. While studies consistently suggested that targeted screening strategies were likely to be cost-effective, considerable heterogeneity in study designs, target populations, and economic measures limited direct comparisons between the strategies. COPD screening and case-finding showed potential of being cost-effective preventive strategies, particularly for high-risk groups. However, the lack of standardized descriptions for the details of the implemented strategies and the diverse outcome measures reported across existing studies limits the comparability between these strategies. Future research is needed to assess the long-term economic impact on healthcare systems and to explore personalized compared with one-size-fits-all screening strategies for COPD.</p>","PeriodicalId":19470,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12830855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41533-025-00467-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes significant health and economic burdens globally. Screening and case-finding strategies are increasingly recognized as critical methods to enhance early diagnosis and management of COPD. It is important to understand the economic impact and cost-effectiveness of these strategies to inform the population health policies and real-world practice. In this study, we aim to summarize and compare the economic evaluations of COPD screening and case-finding strategies. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and NHS economic databases for all published studies up to April 2025 that reported economic outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, budget impact, or cost analysis, related to screening and case-finding of COPD. Data extraction included study type, target population, methods, cost perspectives, and outcome measures. Findings were synthesized narratively. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024516534). We identified 18 eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria, including 11 empirical and 7 modeling studies. A range of screening and case-finding approaches were evaluated, with most studies (n = 16) employing questionnaires either as standalone tools (n = 14) or for pre-screening purposes before the portable spirometer test (n = 8). Portable spirometers were also commonly used (n = 10). The economic outcome measures varied across studies, including cost per additional case detected, cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained, and program-level budget impact. Healthcare sector and payer's perspectives were the most commonly adopted. While studies consistently suggested that targeted screening strategies were likely to be cost-effective, considerable heterogeneity in study designs, target populations, and economic measures limited direct comparisons between the strategies. COPD screening and case-finding showed potential of being cost-effective preventive strategies, particularly for high-risk groups. However, the lack of standardized descriptions for the details of the implemented strategies and the diverse outcome measures reported across existing studies limits the comparability between these strategies. Future research is needed to assess the long-term economic impact on healthcare systems and to explore personalized compared with one-size-fits-all screening strategies for COPD.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)筛查和病例发现的经济评价:一项系统综述
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)在全球范围内造成了重大的健康和经济负担。筛查和病例发现策略日益被认为是加强COPD早期诊断和管理的关键方法。重要的是要了解这些战略的经济影响和成本效益,以便为人口健康政策和实际做法提供信息。在本研究中,我们旨在总结和比较COPD筛查和病例发现策略的经济评估。我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和NHS经济数据库,检索了截至2025年4月所有已发表的报告了与COPD筛查和病例发现相关的经济结果的研究,包括成本效益、预算影响或成本分析。数据提取包括研究类型、目标人群、方法、成本观点和结果测量。研究结果以叙述的方式综合。该系统评价已在PROSPERO注册(CRD42024516534)。我们确定了18项符合纳入标准的研究,包括11项实证研究和7项模型研究。对一系列筛查和病例发现方法进行了评估,大多数研究(n = 16)采用问卷调查作为独立工具(n = 14)或在便携式肺活量计测试之前用于预筛查目的(n = 8)。便携式肺活量计也是常用的(n = 10)。不同研究的经济结果衡量标准各不相同,包括每增加发现病例的成本、每获得质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本以及项目层面的预算影响。最常采用的是医疗保健部门和付款人的观点。虽然研究一致表明,有针对性的筛查策略可能具有成本效益,但研究设计、目标人群和经济措施的巨大异质性限制了策略之间的直接比较。慢性阻塞性肺病筛查和病例发现显示出具有成本效益的预防策略的潜力,特别是对高危人群而言。然而,缺乏对实施策略细节的标准化描述和现有研究报告的不同结果测量限制了这些策略之间的可比性。未来的研究需要评估对医疗保健系统的长期经济影响,并探索与一刀切的COPD筛查策略相比的个性化筛查策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine is an open access, online-only, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research in all areas of the primary care management of respiratory and respiratory-related allergic diseases. Papers published by the journal represent important advances of significance to specialists within the fields of primary care and respiratory medicine. We are particularly interested in receiving papers in relation to the following aspects of respiratory medicine, respiratory-related allergic diseases and tobacco control: epidemiology prevention clinical care service delivery and organisation of healthcare (including implementation science) global health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书