scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Cutler ◽  
Mutsa Gumbie ◽  
Emma Olin ◽  
Bonny Parkinson ◽  
Ross Bowman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objective The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its eligibility criteria for unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) in 2019. NICE claimed this would not impact the cost-effectiveness results used within its 2009 technology appraisal guidance. This claim is uncertain given changed clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness estimates of UCIs in UK adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary NHS environment. Methods A cost–utility analysis employing a Markov model was undertaken to compare UCIs with hearing aids or no hearing aids for people with severe to profound hearing loss. A clinical pathway was developed to estimate resource use. Health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades and device failure were captured. Unit costs were derived mostly from the NHS data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further assessed the effect of uncertain model inputs. Results A UCI is likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (£11,946/QALY) or no hearing aid (£10,499/QALY). A UCI has an 93.0% and 98.7% likelihood of being cost-effective within the UK adult population when compared to a hearing aid or no hearing aid, respectively. ICERs were mostly sensitive to the proportion of people eligible for cochlear implant, discount rate, surgery and device costs and processor upgrade cost. Conclusion UCIs remain cost-effective despite changes to clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Updating the NICE criteria to provide better access UCIs is projected to increase annual implants in adults and children by 70% and expenditure by £28.6 million within three years. This increased access to UCIs will further improve quality of life of recipients and overall social welfare.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutsa Gumbie ◽  
Emma Olin ◽  
Bonny Parkinson ◽  
Ross Bowman ◽  
Henry Cutler
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cochlear Implants ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Profound Hearing Loss ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Research has shown unilateral cochlear implants (CIs) significantly improve clinical outcomes and quality of life in adults. However, only 13% of eligible Swedish adults currently use a unilateral CI. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of unilateral CIs compared to a hearing aid for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss. Methods A Markov model with a lifetime horizon and six-month cycle length was developed to estimate the benefits and costs of unilateral CIs from the Swedish health system perspective. A treatment pathway was developed through consultation with clinical experts to estimate resource use and costs. Unit costs were derived from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Health outcomes were reported in terms of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Results Unilateral CIs for Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss are likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (SEK 140,474 per QALY gained). The results were most sensitive to the age when patients are implanted with a CI and the proportion of patients eligible for CIs after triage. Conclusions An increase in the prevalence of Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss is expected as the population ages. Earlier implantation of unilateral CIs improves the cost-effectiveness among people eligible for CIs. Unilateral CIs are an efficacious and cost-effective option to improve hearing and quality of life in Swedish adults with severe to profound hearing loss.

scholarly journals Understanding the Cost-Effectiveness of Hearing Aids and Surgery for the Treatment of Otosclerosis

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Gillard ◽  
Jeffrey D. Sharon
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stapes Surgery ◽  
Cost Effective Method ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Complications Of Surgery ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose of Review To summarize and critically review recent literature on the relative cost-effectiveness of hearing augmentation versus stapes surgery for the treatment of otosclerosis. Recent Findings Otosclerosis leads to reduced patient quality of life, which can be ameliorated by either stapes surgery, or hearing aid usage. The success of stapes surgery is high, and the risks of serious postoperative complications are low. Hearing aids don’t have the complications of surgery but are associated with long-term costs. Cost-effectiveness models have shown that stapes surgery is a cost-effective method for treating otosclerosis. Summary Both stapes surgery and hearing aids can improve patient-reported quality of life in otosclerosis. Stapes surgery has larger upfront costs and surgical risks, but hearing aids are associated with longer lifetime costs. Stapes surgery is cost-effective for the treatment of otosclerosis.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (81) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Dretzke ◽  
Deirdre Blissett ◽  
Chirag Dave ◽  
Rahul Mukherjee ◽  
Malcolm Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.Data sourcesBibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.ResultsThirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.LimitationsEvidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.Future work recommendationsThe results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the hospital-based palliative care program at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 23-23
Author(s):  
Sarina Isenberg ◽  
David R Holtgrave ◽  
Chunhua Lu ◽  
John P McQuade ◽  
Brian Weir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Palliative Care Unit ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

23 Background: The objectives of the study were to determine whether a Palliative Care Unit (PCU) provides benefits not just from a cost perspective, but from a patient and caregiver quality of life (QOL) perspective. Methods: (1) Calculate the total costs of the PCU; (2) Leverage a threshold analysis to estimate the Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) required for the PCU to be cost effective; and (3) Determine whether it is feasible for the program to yield the required number of QALYs. Setting was the Johns Hopkins Health System Palliative Care Unit (PCU) in Baltimore, MD. Analysis was based on patient volume from March 2013-2014. Results: There were 209 palliative patients. The costs for the societal perspective was $2,044,364 and the required number of QALYs to deem it cost effective were 11.36. The net costs for the hospital perspective was $625,777 (gross cost was $993,528; however, the program generated $367,751 in savings for the hospital through treating patients in the PCU as opposed to other functional units), and the required number of QALYs to deem it cost effective were 3.48. To determine whether the program is able to achieve the number of QALYs required, the study team generated aggregated QALYs based on other studies’ evidence for palliative care’s improvement of quality of life for patients and their caregivers. Combining the QALYs generated from the aggregated calculations for patients (0.12) and caregivers (4.60), the program had the potential to yield a total of 4.73 QALYs. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the PCU is cost effective from the hospital perspective in the sense that the benefits it provides to patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life outweighs the cost of care. Future studies should continue to evaluate palliative care from a cost effectiveness perspective that incorporates a consideration of the quality of life improvements, rather than just cost-reduction.

scholarly journals Determining the cost-effectiveness requirements of an exoskeleton preventing second hip fractures using value of information

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefania Manetti ◽  
Giuseppe Turchetti ◽  
Francesco Fusco
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Falls may lead to hip fractures, which have a detrimental effect on the prognosis of patients as well as a considerable impact on healthcare expenditures. Since a secondary hip fracture (SHF) may lead to even higher costs than primary fractures, the development of innovative services is crucial to limit falls and curb costs in high-risk patients. An early economic evaluation assessed which patients with a second hip fracture could benefit most from an exoskeleton preventing falls and whether its development is feasible. Methods The life-course of hip fractured patients presenting with dementia or cardiovascular diseases was simulated using a Markov model relying on the United Kingdom administrative data and complemented by published literature. A group of experts provided the exoskeleton parameters. Secondary analyses included a threshold analysis to identify the exoskeleton requirements (e.g. minimum impact of the exoskeleton on patients’ quality of life) leading to a reimbursable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Similarly, the uncertainty around these requirements was modelled by varying their standard errors and represented alongside population Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI). Results Our base-case found the exoskeleton cost-effective when providing a statistically significant reduction in SHF risk. The secondary analyses identified 286 cost-effective combinations of the exoskeleton requirements. The uncertainty around these requirements was explored producing further 22,880 scenarios, which showed that this significant reduction in SHF risk was not necessary to support the exoskeleton adoption in clinical practice. Conversely, a significant improvement in women quality of life was crucial to obtain an acceptable population EVPI regardless of the cost of the exoskeleton. Conclusions Our study identified the exoskeleton requisites to be cost-effective and the value of future research. Decision-makers could use our analyses to assess not only whether the exoskeleton could be cost-effective but also how much further research and development of the exoskeleton is worth to be pursued.

Cost-effectiveness of routine radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 1022-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
J A Hayman ◽  
B E Hillner ◽  
J R Harris ◽  
J C Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Conservative Surgery ◽  
The Cost

PURPOSE To examine the cost-effectiveness of radiation therapy following conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS Using a Markov model, a cost-utility analysis was performed to compare a strategy of radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy in a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old women following conservative surgery. Local recurrence, distant recurrence, and survival rates used in the model were derived from randomized trial data. Utilities for the nonmetastatic health states were collected from actual patients. Direct medical costs were estimated using data from a single institution. Transportation and time costs were also estimated. Years of life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost/QALY over a 10-year time horizon were calculated by the model for each strategy. RESULTS The addition of radiation therapy results in a cost increase of $9,800 per patient, no change in life expectancy, and an increase of 0.35 QALYs per patient, which leads to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,000/QALY, which is well below $50,000/QALY, a commonly cited threshold for cost-effective care. Sensitivity analysis shows the ratio to be heavily influenced by the cost of radiation therapy and the quality-of-life benefit that results from decreased risk of local recurrence. CONCLUSION Radiation therapy following conservative surgery is cost-effective compared with other accepted medical interventions. This study illustrates the importance of considering an intervention's effect on quality of life, as well as survival in defining cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of four living-donor nephrectomy techniques from a hospital perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 2004-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamza Achit ◽  
Francis Guillemin ◽  
Georges Karam ◽  
Marc Ladrière ◽  
Cedric Baumann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Operative Outcomes ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background In Europe, transplantation centres use different nephrectomy techniques: open surgery, and standard, hand-assisted and robot-assisted laparoscopies. Few studies have analysed the disparity in costs and clinical outcomes between techniques. Since donors are healthy patients expecting minimum pain and fast recovery, this study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of four nephrectomy techniques focusing on early surgical outcomes, an essential in the donation act. Methods A micro-costing approach was used to estimate the cost of implementation from a hospital perspective. Estimates took into account sterilization costs for multiple-use equipment, costs for purchasing single-use equipment, staff and analgesics. The study recruited donors in 20 centres in France. Quality of life by EuroQol-5D was assessed preoperatively, and 4 and 90 days post-operatively. Two effectiveness indicators were built: quality-of-life recovery and post-operative pain days averted (PPDA). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02830568, on 10 June 2010. Results A total of 264 donors were included; they underwent open surgery (n = 65), and standard (n = 65), hand-assisted (n = 65) and robot-assisted laparoscopies (n = 69). Use of the nephrectomy techniques differed greatly in cost of implementation and immediate post-operative outcomes but not in clinical outcomes at 90 days. At 4 days, hand-assisted laparoscopy provided the lowest cost per quality-of-life recovery unit of effectiveness (%) and PPDA (days) (€2056/40.1%/2.3 days, respectively). Robot-assisted laparoscopy was associated with the best post-operative outcomes but with the highest cost (€3430/59.1%/2.6 days). Conclusion Hand-assisted, standard and robot-assisted laparoscopies are cost-effective techniques compared with open surgery. Hand-assisted surgery is the most cost-effective procedure. Robot-assisted surgery requires more healthcare resource use but enables the best clinical outcome.

scholarly journals Individualized quality of life benefit and cost-effectiveness estimates of proton therapy for patients with oropharyngeal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Patrik Brodin ◽  
Rafi Kabarriti ◽  
Clyde B. Schechter ◽  
Mark Pankuch ◽  
Vinai Gondi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Oropharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Normal Tissue ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Proton therapy is a promising advancement in radiation oncology especially in terms of reducing normal tissue toxicity, although it is currently expensive and of limited availability. Here we estimated the individual quality of life benefit and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT), as a decision-making tool for treatment individualization. Methods and materials Normal tissue complication probability models were used to estimate the risk of dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia and oral mucositis for 33 patients, comparing delivered photon intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) plans to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost were calculated for each complication while accounting for patient-specific conditional survival probability and assigning quality-adjustment factors based on complication severity. Cost-effectiveness was modeled based on upfront costs of IMPT and IMRT, and the cost of acute and/or long-term management of treatment complications. Uncertainties in all model parameters and sensitivity analyses were included through Monte Carlo sampling. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed considerable variability in the cost of QALYs spared between patients, with median $361,405/QALY for all patients, varying from $54,477/QALY to $1,508,845/QALY between individual patients. Proton therapy was more likely to be cost-effective for patients with p16-positive tumors ($234,201/QALY), compared to p16-negative tumors ($516,297/QALY). For patients with p16-positive tumors treated with comprehensive nodal irradiation, proton therapy is estimated to be cost-effective in ≥ 50% of sampled cases for 8/9 patients at $500,000/QALY, compared to 6/24 patients who either have p16-negative tumors or receive unilateral neck irradiation. Conclusions Proton therapy cost-effectiveness varies greatly among oropharyngeal cancer patients, and highlights the importance of individualized decision-making. Although the upfront cost, societal willingness to pay and healthcare administration can vary greatly among different countries, identifying patients for whom proton therapy will have the greatest benefit can optimize resource allocation and inform prospective clinical trial design.

Reassessment of the cost-effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy in Sweden: Results based on the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niklas Zethraeus ◽  
Fredrik Borgström ◽  
Bengt Jönsson ◽  
John Kanis
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Hormone Replacement Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Hormone Replacement ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Menopausal Symptoms ◽  
Health Initiative ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The purpose of the study is to reassess the cost-effectiveness of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) based on new medical evidence found in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). Within a model framework using an individual state transition model, the cost-effectiveness of 50- to 60-year-old women with menopausal symptoms is assessed based on a societal perspective in Sweden.Methods:The model has a 50-year time horizon divided into a cycle length of 1 year. The model consists of the following disease states: coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolic events, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, vertebral fracture, and wrist fracture. An intervention is modeled by its impact on the disease risks during and after the cessation of therapy. The model calculates costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with and without intervention. The resulting cost per QALY gained is compared with the value of a QALY gained, which is set to SEK 600,000. The model requires data on clinical effects, risks, mortality rates, quality of life weights, and costs valid for Sweden.Results:The cost-effectiveness ratios are estimated at approximately SEK 10,000, which is below the threshold value of cost-effectiveness. On the condition that HRT increases the quality of life weight more than 0.013 units, the therapy is cost-effective.Conclusions:In conclusion, given the new evidence in WHI, there is still a high probability that HRT is a cost-effective strategy for women with menopausal symptoms.

scholarly journals A patient-initiated DMARD self-monitoring service for people with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 277-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley McBain ◽  
Chris Flood ◽  
Michael Shipley ◽  
Abigail Olaleye ◽  
Samantha Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Monitoring Service ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective To determine whether a patient-initiated DMARD self-monitoring service for people on MTX is a cost-effective model of care for patients with RA or PsA. Methods An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a randomized controlled trial involving 100 patients. Outcome measures were quality of life and ESR assessed at baseline and post-intervention. Costs were calculated for healthcare usage using a United Kingdom National Health Service economic perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of nurse-led telephone helplines. Uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated by bootstrapping and analysing the cost-effectiveness planes. Results Fifty-two patients received the intervention and 48 usual care. The difference in mean cost per case indicated that the intervention was £263 more expensive (P < 0.001; 95% CI: £149.14, £375.86) when the helpline costs were accounted for and £94 cheaper (P = 0.08; 95% CI: –£199.26, £10.41) when these costs were absorbed by the usual service. There were, however, statistically significant savings for the patient (P = 0.02; 95% CI: −£28.98, £3.00). When costs and effectiveness measures of ESR and quality of life measured, using the Short Form-12v1, were combined this did not show the patient-initiated service to be cost-effective at a statistically significant level. Conclusion This patient-initiated service led to reductions in primary and secondary healthcare services that translated into reduced costs, in comparison with usual care, but were not cost-effective. Further work is needed to establish how nurse-led telephone triage services are integrated into rheumatology services and the associated costs of setting up and delivering them. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN21613721

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document