scholarly journals Improved bootstrap point and confidence interval estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. A201
Author(s):  
G.H. Skrepnek ◽  
A. Sahai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Interval Estimation ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Confidence Interval Estimation

UNCERTAINTY OF INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 608-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan L. Severens ◽  
Theo M. De Boo ◽  
Emmy M. Konst
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Confidence Limits ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Bootstrap Methods ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Using Data

Objective: To compare different methods to estimate the confidence interval of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Methods: The adequacy of Fieller intervals and three methods for calculating bootstrap intervals are compared based on a simulation of 10,000 trials, using data from one trial.Results: Both Fieller and bootstrap methods lead to unsatisfactory results when the difference in effectiveness is approximately zero. Where this difference is significant, the four methods for calculating confidence intervals for ICER do not give very different results, but Fieller's interval performs best.Conclusions: Since Fieller's confidence limits are relatively easy to compute compared with bootstrap simulations, we recommend using this method.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)

2013 ◽  
pp. 1053-1053
Author(s):  
Marie Boltz ◽  
Holly Rau ◽  
Paula Williams ◽  
Holly Rau ◽  
Paula Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Posaconazole Versus Standard Azole Therapy as Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with Prolonged Neutropenia in Canada

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir A Tahami Monfared ◽  
Amy K O’Sullivan ◽  
Coleman Rotstein ◽  
George Papadopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Neutropenic Patients

INTRODUCTION: Posaconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients prevents invasive fungal infection (IFI). An economic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of posaconazole from a Canadian health care system perspective.METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed based on data from a randomized trial comparing posaconazole with standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) therapy. The model was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using one-month Markov cycles; lifetime survival was specific to the underlying disease. Drug and treatment costs associated with IFI were estimated using published literature. The model was used to estimate total costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of posaconazole versus standard azole therapy, in 2007 Canadian dollars.RESULTS: Based on the clinical trial data, posaconazole was associated with fewer cases of IFI (0.05 versus 0.11; P=0.003), increased life-years (2.52 years versus 2.43 years) and slightly lower costs ($6,601 versus $7,045) per patient relative to standard azole therapy over a lifetime horizon. Higher acquisition costs for posaconazole were offset by IFI-associated inpatient costs for those prophylaxed with standard azoles. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 59% probability that posaconazole was cost-saving versus standard azole therapy and a 96% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for posaconazole was at or below the $50,000 per life-year saved threshold.DISCUSSION: In Canada, posaconazole appears to be cost-saving relative to standard azole therapy in IFI prevention among high-risk neutropenic patients.

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Aguilar-Serra ◽  
Vicente Gimeno-Ballester ◽  
Alfonso Pastor-Clerigues ◽  
Javier Milara ◽  
Ezequiel Marti-Bonmati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Estimate Quality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

Abstract 25: Cost-Effectiveness of Public Automated External Defibrillators

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars W Andersen ◽  
Mathias J Holmberg ◽  
Asger Granfeldt ◽  
Lyndon P James ◽  
Lisa Caulley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Automated External Defibrillators ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Despite a consistent association with improved outcomes, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are used in only approximately 10% of public out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of the barriers towards increased use might be cost. The objective of this study was to provide a contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of public AEDs in the United States (US) to inform guidelines and public health initiatives. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of public AEDs to no AEDs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US over a life-time horizon. The analysis assumed a societal perspective and results are presented as costs (in 2017 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model inputs were based on reviews of the literature. For the base case, we modelled an annual cardiac arrest incidence per AED of 20%. It was assumed that AED use was associated with a 52% relative increase in survival to hospital discharge with a favorable neurological outcome in those with a shockable rhythm. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for joint parameter uncertainty. Consistent with recent guidelines from the American Heart Association, we used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Results: The no AED strategy resulted in 1.63 QALYs at a cost of $42,757. The AED strategy yielded an additional 0.26 QALYs for an incremental increase in cost of $13,793 per individual. The AED strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,797 per QALY gained. The yearly incidence of cardiac arrests occurring in the presence of an AED had minimal effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio except at very low incidences. At an incidence of 1%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $101,040 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses across a plausible range of health-care and societal estimates, the AED strategy remained cost-effective. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the AED strategy was cost-effective in 43%, 85%, and 91% of the scenarios at a threshold of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusion: Public AEDs are a cost-effective public health intervention in the US. These findings support widespread dissemination of public AEDs.

scholarly journals Atrial Fibrillation Screen, Management, and Guideline‐Recommended Therapy in the Rural Primary Care Setting: A Cross‐Sectional Study and Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of eHealth Tools to Support All Stages of Screening

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Orchard ◽  
Jialin Li ◽  
Ben Freedman ◽  
Ruth Webster ◽  
Glenn Salkeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND Internationally, most atrial fibrillation (AF) management guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for AF in people ≥65 years of age and oral anticoagulant treatment for those at high stroke risk (CHA₂DS₂‐VA≥2). However, gaps remain in screening and treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS General practitioners/nurses at practices in rural Australia (n=8) screened eligible patients (≥65 years of age without AF) using a smartphone ECG during practice visits. eHealth tools included electronic prompts, guideline‐based electronic decision support, and regular data reports. Clinical audit tools extracted de‐identified data. Results were compared with an earlier study in metropolitan practices (n=8) and nonrandomized control practices (n=69). Cost‐effectiveness analysis compared population‐based screening with no screening and included screening, treatment, and hospitalization costs for stroke and serious bleeding events. Patients (n=3103, 34%) were screened (mean age, 75.1±6.8 years; 47% men) and 36 (1.2%) new AF cases were confirmed (mean age, 77.0 years; 64% men; mean CHA₂DS₂‐VA, 3.2). Oral anticoagulant treatment rates for patients with CHA₂DS₂‐VA≥2 were 82% (screen detected) versus 74% (preexisting AF)( P =NS), similar to metropolitan and nonrandomized control practices. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for population‐based screening was AU$16 578 per quality‐adjusted life year gained and AU$84 383 per stroke prevented compared with no screening. National implementation would prevent 147 strokes per year. Increasing the proportion screened to 75% would prevent 177 additional strokes per year. CONCLUSIONS An AF screening program in rural practices, supported by eHealth tools, screened 34% of eligible patients and was cost‐effective. Oral anticoagulant treatment rates were relatively high at baseline, trending upward during the study. Increasing the proportion screened would prevent many more strokes with minimal incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio change. eHealth tools, including data reports, may be a valuable addition to future programs. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12618000004268.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of introducing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the management of complex phalangeal fractures: economic simulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Faccioli ◽  
E. Santi ◽  
G. Foti ◽  
G. Mansueto ◽  
M. Corain
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the management of the complex finger fractures with articular involvement. Methods We created a decision tree model simulating the diagnostic pathway of complex finger fractures, suggesting the use of CBCT as alternative to multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), and we compared their clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients. Measures of effectiveness are analysed by using quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit. Results Diagnosis of a complex finger fracture performed with CBCT costed 67.33€ per patient, yielded 9.08 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 29.94€ and a net monetary benefit of 9.07 € at 30,000€ threshold. Using MSCT for diagnosis costed 106.23 €, yielded 8.18 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 371.15 € and a net monetary benefit of 8.09 €. CBCT strategy dominated the MSCT strategy. The acceptability curve shows that there is 98% probability of CBCT being the optimal strategy at 30,000€ threshold (1 EUR equal to 1.11 USD; updated on 02/02/2020). Conclusion CBCT in complex finger fractures management is cost saving compared with MSCT and may be considered a valuable imaging tool in preoperative assessment, allowing early detection and appropriate treatment. It shortens the time to completion of diagnostic work-up, reduces the number of additional diagnostic procedures, improves quality of life, and may reduce costs in a societal perspective.

scholarly journals Comparative clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 865-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Shuli Qu ◽  
Yanjun Liu ◽  
Xingxing Yao ◽  
Wei Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document