PIH30 Endometriosis-Associated Pelvic Pain Treated with Dienogest or GNRH Analogues: Cost-Utility Comparison with 5 Years Time Horizon

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Download Full-text

Dienogest versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue for the clinical treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174013 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 (9) ◽

pp. 3712

Author(s):

Sofia Andrade De Oliveira ◽

Bárbara Souza Melo ◽

Marina Fernandes Pereira

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pelvic Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Uterine Cavity ◽

Lower Abdominal Pain ◽

Gnrh Analogue ◽

Hot Flushes ◽

Gnrh Analogues ◽

Great Loss ◽

Pouch Of Douglas

Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory disease, defined by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterine cavity. It causes symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, infertility, with great loss of quality of life for the patient. The objective of the study was to compare, through a meta-analysis, GnRH analogues, which are considered clinical first line treatment for endometriosis, versus dienogest, a selective oral progestin in the treatment of endometriosis. A systematic review was conducted to select the studies. In total, 31 articles were found. Four studies met criteria, the following variables were analyzed: pelvic pain, dyspareunia and induration of the Pouch of Douglas after treatment and it was evaluated the presence of side effects during treatment: hot flushes, headache and BMD loss. There was no difference between the dienogest group and GnRH analogue group when it was evaluated maintenance of lower abdominal pain, dyspareunia, induration of the Pouch of Douglas after treatment and hot flushes during treatment. Besides those results, the dienogest group had a lower incidence of headache and less BMD loss. The treatment of endometriosis continues to be a challenge, even with new treatment options such as new drugs (dienogest) and surgical procedures. This meta-analysis provides evidence of the absence of dienogest inferiority compared with GnRH analogues with less BMD loss and less headache incidence.

Download Full-text

A cost utility comparison of transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and microdiscectomy

The Spine Journal ◽

10.1016/j.spinee.2016.01.031 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 16 (4) ◽

pp. S47

Author(s):

Chloe E.H. Scott ◽

J.N. Alastair Gibson

Keyword(s):

Cost Utility ◽

Endoscopic Discectomy ◽

Utility Comparison

Download Full-text

15: Activated Vitamin D Therapy for Patients with End Stage Renal Disease on Hemodialysis: A Cost-Utility Comparison of Empiric versus Usual Care Strategies

American Journal of Kidney Diseases ◽

10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.02.020 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 51 (4) ◽

pp. B31

Author(s):

Charles B. Arbogast ◽

Stephen W. Olson ◽

Robert M. Perkins

Keyword(s):

Vitamin D ◽

Renal Disease ◽

Usual Care ◽

End Stage Renal Disease ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Stage Renal Disease ◽

End Stage ◽

Utility Comparison

Download Full-text

OP535 Cost-Effectiveness Of Internet-Based HIV Screening In Men Who Have Sex With Men in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s026646232000121x ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 36 (S1) ◽

pp. 13-14

Author(s):

Wei Zhang ◽

José de Anda ◽

Michael Irvine ◽

Hsiu-Ju Chang ◽

Mark Gilbert

Keyword(s):

British Columbia ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sexual History ◽

Base Case ◽

Hiv Screening ◽

Life Years ◽

Sex With Men

IntroductionIn Canada, individuals test for HIV commonly through clinic-based screening services (CBSS). However, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) may face barriers accessing such services due to, for example, feeling discomfort disclosing their sexual history or fearing judgment from healthcare providers. To reduce barriers and increase uptake and frequency of screening for sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control implemented an internet-based screening service, GetCheckedOnline.com (GCO), in September 2014 in Vancouver, Canada. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of GCO at different uptake scenarios compared to CBSS in Vancouver GBMSM.MethodsCost-utility analyses were conducted from a healthcare payer's perspective using an established dynamic GBMSM HIV compartmental model. The model estimated the probability of becoming infected with HIV, progressing through diagnosis, disease stages, and treatment over a 30-year time horizon. The base case assumed 4.7 percent uptake of GCO, and 74 percent of high-risk and 44 percent of low-risk infrequent testers becoming regular testers in five years. Scenario analyses tested GCO 10 and 15 percent uptakes.ResultsCompared with the conventional CBSS alone, a 4.7 percent GCO uptake increased the costs by CAD90,059 (USD75,680; 95% confidence interval (CI): -CAD420,836, CAD273,987) and gained 3 (95% CI: 0, 6) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a 30-year time horizon. There was a 71 percent probability that GCO was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD50,000 (USD42,000) per QALY. The results were consistent in other two uptake scenarios.ConclusionsExpanding HIV screening for GBMSM through increasing uptake of GCO is a cost-effective alternative to expanding the conventional CBSS. We noted that difference in total costs might be smaller if a battery of STI tests is considered, which in turn may affect our cost-effectiveness estimate. For the next phase of cost-utility analysis, we will expand our model to include testing for other STIs.

Download Full-text

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

Multiple Sclerosis Journal ◽

10.1191/1352458505ms1211oa ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 11 (5) ◽

pp. 542-551 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Michael Iskedjian ◽

John H Walker ◽

Trevor Gray ◽

Colin Vicente ◽

Thomas R Einarson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Interferon Beta ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Current Treatment ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Life Years ◽

Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

Download Full-text

Economic Evaluation of Daratumumab and Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Isatuximab and Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136348 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 19-20

Author(s):

Neda Alrawashdh ◽

Abdulaali Almutairi ◽

Ali McBride ◽

Ivo Abraham

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Health States ◽

Time Horizons ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost

Background. Although several new treatments are available for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), most patients eventually relapse at a median time of 8.0 months (95%CI: 6.3-8.9). Patients with relapsed and refractory MM (R/R MM) who have had several lines of previous therapy or who are refractory to lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors require alternative options. Daratumumab and isatuximab are monoclonal antibodies that bind to the human CD38 receptor. Phase II/III clinical trials showed that isatuximab (ISA) or daratumumab (DARA) in combination with pomalidomide (POM-d) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEXA) significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with R/R MM. No studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both regimens in management of R/R MM. We performed an indirect comparison of both regimens in terms of PFS and overall survival (OS) and evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of DARA+POM-d+DEXA and ISA+POM-d+DEXA from a US payer's perspective. Methods. A partitioned survival model was developed to create three health states (pre-progression, progression, and death). The model was run three times with different time horizons (one, three and five years). To simulate health outcomes for each treatment regimen, transition probabilities between the three health states were derived from parametric exponential and lognormal distributions fitted to Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of PFS and OS of the phase Ib clinical trial (Chari et al.; Blood 2017) for DARA+POM-d+DEXA and the phase III clinical trial (Attal et al.; Lancet 2019) for ISA+POM-d+DEXA. Wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) were obtained from RedBook for each regimen. Pre-progression costs included costs of regimens; premedication (50 mg diphenhydramine, 650 mg acetaminophen, 50 mg ranitidine); managing side effects; routine care and monitoring; and medication administration. Costs were inflated based on the medical consumer price index to the second quarter of 2020. Utilities were obtained from literature and assumed the same for both interventions. Annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied for costs and outcomes beyond the first year. The life years (LY) and quality adjusted LY (QALY) for each treatment, and the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in both base and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA:10,000 simulations). The cost-effectiveness plane (CEP) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were plotted. Results. In the naïve patient simulation, median PFS and OS were estimated to be 9.5 months and 18 months for DARA+POM-d+DEXA, and 14.5 months and 26 months for ISA+POM-d +DEXA. As shown in the table below, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with greater LY and QALY gains at one-, three- and five-year time horizons. The costs of ISA+POM-d+DEXA at one- and three- year time horizons are less than that of DARA+POM-d+DEXA, which resulted in saving (decremental) ICERs. At 5 years' time horizon, ISA+POM-d+DEXA was associated with incremental benefits (0.57 LY, 0.35 QALY) and incremental costs of $88,271 when compared with DARA+POM-d+DEXA. Per the CEAC plot, the probability that ISA+POM-d+DEXA is cost-effective was 100%, 65% and 23% at a willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of $100,000 per QALY in one-, three- and five-year time horizons. Conclusions. Clinically, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with incremental survival gains of ~1 month and quality-adjusted survival gains of 0.5 month than DARA+POM-d+DEXA when patients are treated for one year. The benefits increase with treatment duration to reach ~7 months life year gains and 4 months quality-adjusted life year gains if patients treated for 5 years. Due to its lower total costs, Isatuximab based-regimen yielded saving ICERs at one and three years. However, ISA+POM-d+DEXA cost exceeded DARA+POM-d+DEXA at 5 years' time horizon to yield an ICER above the WTP. Disclosures McBride: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Abraham:Celgene: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Consultancy.

Download Full-text