scholarly journals Budget Impact of Restrictive Strategy Versus Usual Care for Cholecystectomy (SECURE-trial)

2021 ◽  
Vol 268 ◽  
pp. 59-70
Author(s):  
Carmen S.S. Latenstein ◽  
Aafke H. van Dijk ◽  
Sarah Z. Wennmacker ◽  
Joost P.H. Drenth ◽  
Gert P. Westert ◽  
...  
The Lancet ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 393 (10188) ◽  
pp. 2322-2330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aafke H van Dijk ◽  
Sarah Z Wennmacker ◽  
Philip R de Reuver ◽  
Carmen S S Latenstein ◽  
Otmar Buyne ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1697-1705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piyameth Dilokthornsakul ◽  
Ryan N. Hansen ◽  
Jonathan D. Campbell

Ivacaftor, a breakthrough treatment for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients with the G551D genetic mutation, lacks long-term clinical and cost projections. This study forecasted outcomes and cost by comparing ivacaftor plus usual care versus usual care alone.A lifetime Markov model was conducted from a US payer perspective. The model consisted of five health states: 1) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % pred ≥70%, 2) 40%≤ FEV1 % pred <70%, 3) FEV1 % pred <40%, 4) lung transplantation and 5) death. All inputs were extracted from published literature. Budget impact was also estimated. We estimated ivacaftor's improvement in outcomes compared with a non-CF referent population.Ivacaftor was associated with 18.25 (95% credible interval (CrI) 13.71–22.20) additional life-years and 15.03 (95% CrI 11.13–18.73) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Ivacaftor was associated with improvements in survival and QALYs equivalent to 68% and 56%, respectively, for the survival and QALY gaps between CF usual care and their non-CF peers. The incremental lifetime cost was $3 374 584. The budget impact was $0.087 per member per month.Ivacaftor increased life-years and QALYs in CF patients with the G551D mutation, and moved morbidity and mortality closer to that of their non-CF peers. Ivacaftor costs much more than usual care, but comes at a relatively limited budget impact.


HPB ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S98-S99
Author(s):  
C.S.S. Latenstein ◽  
S. Wennmacker ◽  
A. van Dijk ◽  
J. Drenth ◽  
G. Westert ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 15 ◽  
pp. 1059-1066
Author(s):  
Kelly Urban ◽  
Patricia B Wright ◽  
Amy L Hester ◽  
Geoffrey Curran ◽  
Martha Rojo ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Tully ◽  
Jan Sorensen ◽  
Grace O'Malley

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) may improve pediatric weight management capacity and the geographical reach of services, and overcome barriers to attending physical appointments using ubiquitous devices such as smartphones and tablets. This field remains an emerging research area with some evidence of its effectiveness; however, there is a scarcity of literature describing economic evaluations of mHealth interventions. OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess the economic viability of using an mHealth approach as an alternative to standard multidisciplinary care by evaluating the direct costs incurred within treatment arms during a noninferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS A digitally delivered (via a smartphone app) maintenance phase of a pediatric weight management program was developed iteratively with patients and families using evidence-based approaches. We undertook a microcosting exercise and budget impact analysis to assess the costs of delivery from the perspective of the publicly funded health care system. Resource use was analyzed alongside the RCT, and we estimated the costs associated with the staff time and resources for service delivery per participant. RESULTS In total, 109 adolescents participated in the trial, and 84 participants completed the trial (25 withdrew from the trial). We estimated the mean direct cost per adolescent attending usual care at €142 (SD 23.7), whereas the cost per adolescent in the mHealth group was €722 (SD 221.1), with variations depending on the number of weeks of treatment completion. The conversion rate for the reference year 2013 was $1=€0.7525. The costs incurred for those who withdrew from the study ranged from €35 to €681, depending on the point of dropout and study arm. The main driver of the costs in the mHealth arm was the need for health professional monitoring and support for patients on a weekly basis. The budget impact for offering the mHealth intervention to all newly referred patients in a 1-year period was estimated at €59,046 using the assessed approach. CONCLUSIONS This mHealth approach was substantially more expensive than usual care, although modifications to the intervention may offer opportunities to reduce the mHealth costs. The need for monitoring and support from health care professionals (HCPs) was not eliminated using this delivery model. Further research is needed to explore the cost-effectiveness and economic impact on families and from a wider societal perspective. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01804855; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01804855


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document