Ben Yarnoff, Walter Morris, Hossein Zivaripiran, Megan McCutcheon, Thomas Koshy
{"title":"Economic Evaluation of Combined Testing Strategies Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate and C-Reactive Protein Tests.","authors":"Ben Yarnoff, Walter Morris, Hossein Zivaripiran, Megan McCutcheon, Thomas Koshy","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S578961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct an economic analysis of the use of combined ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) and CRP (C-Reactive Protein) testing strategies compared to CRP testing alone in U.S hospitals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of combined ESR and CRP testing compared to CRP alone. The model estimated the laboratory costs, number of misdiagnoses, and follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and clinical guidelines. Two combined testing strategies were evaluated: 1) result is positive only if both ESR and CRP results are positive (ESR + CRP) and 2) result is positive if either the ESR or CRP result is positive (ESR/CRP). Strategies were evaluated for five individual and three grouped conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results demonstrated that the ESR + CRP testing strategy is a cost-effective strategy for reducing misdiagnoses and is expected to result in a net cost reduction to the healthcare system when accounting for the reduction in follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. In contrast, the ESR/CRP strategy led to increased misdiagnoses when compared to CRP alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results indicate that adopting the ESR + CRP strategy would reduce misdiagnoses and overall costs to healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"18 ","pages":"578961"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12912126/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S578961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To conduct an economic analysis of the use of combined ESR (Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) and CRP (C-Reactive Protein) testing strategies compared to CRP testing alone in U.S hospitals.
Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of combined ESR and CRP testing compared to CRP alone. The model estimated the laboratory costs, number of misdiagnoses, and follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. Model inputs were sourced from published literature and clinical guidelines. Two combined testing strategies were evaluated: 1) result is positive only if both ESR and CRP results are positive (ESR + CRP) and 2) result is positive if either the ESR or CRP result is positive (ESR/CRP). Strategies were evaluated for five individual and three grouped conditions.
Results: Results demonstrated that the ESR + CRP testing strategy is a cost-effective strategy for reducing misdiagnoses and is expected to result in a net cost reduction to the healthcare system when accounting for the reduction in follow-up costs associated with misdiagnoses. In contrast, the ESR/CRP strategy led to increased misdiagnoses when compared to CRP alone.
Conclusion: Results indicate that adopting the ESR + CRP strategy would reduce misdiagnoses and overall costs to healthcare systems.