A new methodology for cost-effectiveness studies of domestic radon remediation programmes: Quality-adjusted life-years gained within Primary Care Trusts in Central England

2006 ◽  
Vol 366 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Coskeran ◽  
Antony Denman ◽  
Paul Phillips ◽  
Gavin Gillmore ◽  
Roger Tornberg
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Effectiveness Studies ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 553-562
Author(s):  
Hongfu Cai ◽  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO’s triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

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 Prevention versus early detection for long-term control of melanoma and keratinocyte carcinomas: a cost-effectiveness modelling study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louisa Gordon ◽  
Catherine Olsen ◽  
David C Whiteman ◽  
Thomas M Elliott ◽  
Monika Janda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Sunscreen Use ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectiveTo compare the long-term economic impact of melanoma prevention by sun protection, with the corresponding impact of early detection of melanoma to decrease melanoma deaths.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using Markov cohort model. Data were primarily from two population-based randomised controlled trials, epidemiological and costing reports, and included flow-on effects for keratinocyte cancers (previously non-melanoma skin cancers) and actinic keratoses.SettingQueensland, Australia.ParticipantsMen and women with a mean age 50 years modelled for 30 years.InterventionsDaily sunscreen use (prevention) compared with annual clinical skin examinations (early detection) and comparing these in turn with the status quo.Primary and secondary outcomesCosts, counts of melanoma, melanoma deaths, keratinocyte cancers, life years and quality-adjusted life years.ResultsPer 100 000 individuals, for early detection, primary prevention and without intervention, there were 2446, 1364 and 2419 new melanomas, 556, 341 and 567 melanoma deaths, 64 452, 47 682 and 64 659 keratinocyte cancers and £493.5, £386.4 and £406.1 million in economic costs, respectively. There were small differences between prevention and early detection in life years saved (0.09%) and quality-adjusted life years gained (0.10%).ConclusionsCompared with early detection of melanoma, systematic sunscreen use at a population level will prevent substantial numbers of new skin tumours, melanoma deaths and save healthcare costs. Primary prevention through daily use of sunscreen is a priority for investment in the control of melanoma.

scholarly journals Methods for the economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: principal challenges and recommendations

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Meacock
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Delivery Of Health Services ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

AbstractThere is a requirement for economic evaluation of health technologies seeking public funding across Europe. Changes to the organisation and delivery of health services, including changes to health policy, are not covered by such appraisals. These changes also have consequences for National Health Service (NHS) funds, yet undergo no mandatory cost-effectiveness assessment. The focus on health technologies may have occurred because larger-scale service changes pose more complex challenges to evaluators. This paper discusses the principal challenges faced when performing economic evaluations of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services and provides recommendations for overcoming them. The five principal challenges identified are as follows: undertakingex-anteevaluation; evaluating impacts in terms of quality-adjusted life years; assessing costs and opportunity costs; accounting for spillover effects; and generalisability. Of these challenges, methods for estimating the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years are those most in need of development. Methods are available forex-anteevaluation, assessing opportunity costs and examining generalisability. However, these are rarely applied in practice. The general principles of assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions should be applied to all NHS spending, not just that involving health technologies. Advancements in this area have the potential to improve the allocation of scarce NHS resources.

Cost-of-illness and economic evaluations in axial spondyloarthritis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annelies Boonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Axial Spondyloarthritis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Consideration of costs and budgets plays an increasingly important role in decisions on access to innovative technologies. When clinicians want to influence such decisions, it is essential to understand the information on the burden of the disease and the evidence on cost-effectiveness of technologies. This chapter provides guidance to understanding the key methodological principles of economic evaluations, and describes available evidence on these issues in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In the prebiologics era, the cost-of-illness for society of ankylosing spondylitis was slightly lower than for rheumatoid arthritis, and substantially lower than chronic low back pain. Cost of sick leave and work disability accounted for up to 75% of total cost-of-illness. Treatment with biologics increased cost-of-illness substantially, but the important gain in quality-adjusted life years resulted in acceptable cost-effectiveness in patients with active disease. There remains a gap in knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and treating axSpA earlier.

scholarly journals Using QALYs versus DALYs to measure cost-effectiveness: How much does it matter?

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue Feng ◽  
David D. Kim ◽  
Joshua T. Cohen ◽  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Daniel A. Ollendorf
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Disability Weights ◽  
Disability Adjusted Life ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Relative Differences ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectivesQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) are commonly used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to measure health benefits. We sought to quantify and explain differences between QALY- and DALY-based cost-effectiveness ratios, and explore whether using one versus the other would materially affect conclusions about an intervention's cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe identified CEAs using both QALYs and DALYs from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry and Global Health CEA Registry, with a supplemental search to ensure comprehensive literature coverage. We calculated absolute and relative differences between the QALY- and DALY-based ratios, and compared ratios to common benchmarks (e.g., 1× gross domestic product per capita). We converted reported costs into US dollars.ResultsAmong eleven published CEAs reporting both QALYs and DALYs, seven focused on pharmaceuticals and infectious disease, and five were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies concluded that the intervention was “dominant” (cost-saving). Among the QALY- and DALY-based ratios reported from the remaining seven studies, absolute differences ranged from approximately $2 to $15,000 per unit of benefit, and relative differences from 6–120 percent, but most differences were modest in comparison with the ratio value itself. The values assigned to utility and disability weights explained most observed differences. In comparison with cost-effectiveness thresholds, conclusions were consistent regardless of the ratio type in ten of eleven cases.ConclusionsOur results suggest that although QALY- and DALY-based ratios for the same intervention can differ, differences tend to be modest and do not materially affect comparisons to common cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document