scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe asthma: Results from the Asthma Policy Model

2007 ◽  
Vol 120 (5) ◽  
pp. 1146-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann C. Wu ◽  
A. David Paltiel ◽  
Karen M. Kuntz ◽  
Scott T. Weiss ◽  
Anne L. Fuhlbrigge
Circulation ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 125 (suppl_10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Moran ◽  
Petra Rasmussen ◽  
Rachel Zhao ◽  
Pamela G Coxson ◽  
David Guzman ◽  
...  

Introduction: Current U.S. hypertension guidelines base treatment on clinic blood pressure (BP) alone. International guidelines recommend adding global cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide treatment. We projected incremental effectiveness and costs of treating stage 1 hypertension based on CVD risk assessment. Methods: We used the Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Policy Model, a validated state-transition simulation of the CVD epidemic in the US, to model CHD and stroke events, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) of increasingly aggressive treatment of hypertensive patients. Census and national survey data were used to estimate joint distributions of risk factors by age and sex; the CVD risk function was based on Framingham. We modeled treatment of BP to an approximate target <140/90 mmHg using standard dose medications, including averaged annual drug costs (e.g., $253 for a systolic BP reduction of 11.5 mmHg; $1,036 for reduction of 36.7 mmHg) and monitoring costs (2 or 4 visits/year for stage 1 or 2 plus 1 lab test/year for all). We compared a strategy in which only stage 2 hypertensives (≥160/≥100 mmHg) were treated to increasingly aggressive strategies in which stage 1 hypertensives (140-159/90-99 mmHg) with successively lower global CVD risk (15%, 10%, 5% risk, then all of stage 1) were also treated. Results: Reaching hypertension treatment targets with any policy simulated would prevent between 389,000 and 478,000 CVD events annually ( Table ). Treating all stage 2 and ≥15% CVD risk stage 1 hypertensives would be cost-saving and treating stage 1 with ≥10% or ≥5% CVD risk would incur modest costs. Treating all stage 1 would cost $161,000/QALY more than treating only ≥5% CVD risk. Conclusions: Treatment of low risk stage 1 hypertensives appears to come at high cost and limited added benefit unless treatment costs can be minimized. Using global CVD risk assessment might allow re-allocation of resources toward controlling hypertension in the highest risk patients. Table Simulated CVD outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness, 2010-2011, the CHD Policy Model Scenario Annual number hypertensives treated Annual CVD events Annual QALYs (millions) Annual costs (millions, $US) ICER * Base case, no intervention - 2,387,000 127.67 $827,313 reference Treat only stage 2 23,364,180 1,997,000 128.78 $825,264 cost saving Treat stage 2 + stage 1 >=15% CVD risk 30,654,361 1,943,000 128.93 $824,541 cost saving Treat stage 2 + stage 1 >=10% CVD risk 34,947,200 1,928,000 128.97 $824,898 $9,381 Treat stage 2 + stage 1 >= 5% CVD risk 44,321,985 1,913,000 129.02 $826,433 $28,931 Treat stage 2 + all stage 1 50,863,390 1,909,000 129.04 $828,290 $160,630 *ICER = difference in cost/difference in QALY in comparison with the next less effective strategy


2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosana Franco ◽  
Andreia C Santos ◽  
Harrison F do Nascimento ◽  
Carolina Souza-Machado ◽  
Eduardo Ponte ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-IN4 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.David Paltiel ◽  
Anne L. Fuhlbrigge ◽  
Barrett T. Kitch ◽  
Bengt Liljas ◽  
Scott T. Weiss ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 957-967
Author(s):  
Mondher Mtibaa ◽  
Subhajit Gupta ◽  
Madhusubramanian Muthukumar ◽  
Jessica Marvel ◽  
Harneet Kaur ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 137 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel S Tajeu ◽  
Ciaran Kohli-Lynch ◽  
Yiyi Zhang ◽  
Paul Muntner ◽  
Steven Shea ◽  
...  

Introduction: Uncertainty remains regarding the most efficient and cost-effective 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk prediction tool for identifying moderate to high-risk patients for primary prevention statin treatment. Methods: We utilized the CVD Policy Model, a computer microsimulation model of ASCVD incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs, to compare cost-effectiveness of statin treatment at varying 10-year predicted ASCVD risk thresholds for Framingham CVD (FRS-CVD), Reynolds Risk Score (RRS), and Pooled Cohorts Risk Equations over a 10-year time horizon in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort. Cost effectiveness was assessed at predicted 10-year risk ≥ 20.0%, 15.0%, 10.0%, 7.5%, 5.0%, and 2.5%. We restricted the simulation cohort to participants aged 50 to 74 years who were not taking statins at baseline (n = 2,871). Moderate intensity statin treatment effectiveness was parameterized in the model as a 29% low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction. Total cost comprised statins ($100/year), side effect costs, and ASCVD event costs. Disability from treatment side effects and ASCVD events were included. Results: Average FRS-CVD, RRS, and Pooled Cohorts 10-year predicted ASCVD risks were 18.8%, 11.3%, 12.2%, for men and 8.9%, 4.3%, 6.6%, for women, respectively. At the same predicted risk, FRS-CVD consistently selected the most patients for treatment, and RRS the fewest ( Figure ). Compared with no treatment, treating patients with RRS ≥ 20% was cost saving in men. Subsequent risk threshold strategies with incremental cost effectiveness <$75,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for men were: FRS-CVD ≥ 20% ($13,046), RRS ≥ 7.5% ($17,774), and RRS ≥ 5.0% ($19,891). For women, the non-dominated thresholds were: Pooled Cohorts ≥ 15% ($27,908) and Pooled Cohorts ≥ 7.5% ($72,377). Conclusions: At cost-effectiveness thresholds less than $75,000/QALY, RRS was the highest value tool for men while the Pooled Cohorts Risk Equations performed best for women.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document