THU-191-The cost-effectiveness of an HCV outreach intervention for at-risk populations in London, UK

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. e246-e247
Author(s):  
Zoe Ward ◽  
Linda Campbell ◽  
Julian Surey ◽  
Steven Platts ◽  
Rachel Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
At Risk Populations ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Outreach Intervention

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Patients at Risk of Infective Endocarditis

Circulation ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 134 (20) ◽  
pp. 1568-1578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Franklin ◽  
Allan Wailoo ◽  
Mark J. Dayer ◽  
Simon Jones ◽  
Bernard Prendergast ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Infective Endocarditis ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
The Cost

Cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae as part of the PrEP programme in the Netherlands: a modelling study

2021 ◽  
pp. sextrans-2020-054741
Author(s):  
Francine van Wifferen ◽  
Elske Hoornenborg ◽  
Maarten F Schim van der Loeff ◽  
Janneke Heijne ◽  
Albert Jan van Hoek
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chlamydia Trachomatis ◽  
Neisseria Gonorrhoeae ◽  
Infection Model ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users are routinely tested four times a year (3 monthly) for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) infections on three anatomical locations. Given the high costs of this testing to the PrEP programme, we assessed the impact of 3 monthly screening(current practice), compared with 6 monthly on the disease burden. We quantified the difference in impact of these two testing frequencies on the prevalence of CT and NG among all men who have sex with men (MSM) who are at risk of an STI, and explored the cost-effectiveness of 3-monthly screening compared with a baseline scenario of 6-monthly screening.MethodsA dynamic infection model was developed to simulate the transmission of CT and NG among sexually active MSM (6500 MSM on PrEP and 29 531 MSM not on PrEP), and the impact of two different test frequencies over a 10-year period. The difference in number of averted infections was used to calculate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) as well as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a societal perspective.ResultsCompared with 6-monthly screening, 3-monthly screening of PrEP users for CT and NG cost an additional €46.8 million over a period of 10 years. Both screening frequencies would significantly reduce the prevalence of CT and NG, but 3-monthly screening would avert and extra ~18 250 CT and NG infections compared with 6-monthly screening, resulting in a gain of ~81 QALYs. The corresponding ICER was ~€430 000 per QALY gained, which exceeded the cost-effectiveness threshold of €20 000 per QALY.ConclusionsThree-monthly screening for CT and NG among MSM on PrEP is not cost-effective compared with 6-monthly screening. The ICER becomes more favourable when a smaller fraction of all MSM at risk for an STI are screened. Reducing the screening frequency could be considered when the PrEP programme is established and the prevalence of CT and NG decline.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e039057
Author(s):  
Lisa A de Jong ◽  
Annette W G van der Velden ◽  
Marinus van Hulst ◽  
Maarten J Postma
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesIn the ‘Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism’ (SELECT-D) trial, rivaroxaban showed relatively low venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence but higher bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer. We aim to calculate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent VTE.SettingWe built a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon for the Dutch healthcare setting.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of 1000 cancer patients with VTE entered the model with baseline characteristics based on the SELECT-D trial.InterventionSix months of treatment with rivaroxaban (15 mg two times per day for first 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) was compared with 6 months of treatment with dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1 followed by 150 IU/kg daily).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was evaluated in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. A budget impact analysis was performed to calculate the total annual financial consequences for a societal perspective in the Netherlands.ResultsIn the base case and all scenarios, rivaroxaban were cost-saving while also slightly improving the patient’s health, resulting in economically dominant ICERs. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 77.8% and 98.7% of the simulations showed rivaroxaban to be cost-saving and more effective for a 5-year and 6-month time horizon, respectively. Rivaroxaban can save up to €11 326 763 (CI €5 164 254 to €17 363 231) in approximately 8000 cancer patients with VTE per year compared with dalteparin based on a 1-year time horizon.ConclusionsTreatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands. The use of rivaroxaban instead of dalteparin can save over €10 million per year, primarily driven by the difference in drug costs.

scholarly journals 243: The cost-effectiveness of counseling interventions for young women at-risk of perinatal depression

2020 ◽  
Vol 222 (1) ◽  
pp. S168
Author(s):  
Gabriel J. Franta ◽  
Alyssa R. Hersh ◽  
Nicole H. Cirino ◽  
Aaron B. Caughey
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Perinatal Depression ◽  
Counseling Interventions ◽  
The Cost

The practicalities and cost-effectiveness of screening at-risk groups for kidney disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 234-243
Author(s):  
Jane C Bridger
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
General Population ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Financial Costs ◽  
Major Revision ◽  
Rising Incidence ◽  
The Cost

This article considers the practicalities and cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic kidney disease among at-risk groups and the general population. The systems currently in place to deliver screening for both groups use flawed methodology to determine the presence of chronic kidney disease, while failing to meet screening target numbers. The cost-effectiveness of such systems is therefore compromised. Meanwhile, despite the rising incidence of chronic kidney disease, patients in known at-risk groups, including those with common conditions such as diabetes or hypertension, have no guarantee of being screened. This raises major questions about how the NHS can practically and cost-effectively tackle the rising prevalence of chronic kidney disease. A major revision of strategy is needed to address the human and financial costs associated with failure to identify and effectively manage chronic kidney disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document