CN2 WHEN IS CANCER CARE COST-EFFECTIVE? A SYSTEMATIC OVERVIEW OF COST-UTILITY ANALYSES IN ONCOLOGY

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Download Full-text

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

Canadian Urological Association Journal ◽

10.5489/cuaj.6376 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (8) ◽

Author(s):

Anna Parackal ◽

Jean-Eric Tarride ◽

Feng Xie ◽

Gord Blackhouse ◽

Jennifer Hoogenes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Economic Evaluations ◽

Base Case ◽

Robot Assisted ◽

Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Life Years

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

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8043 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 8043-8043

Author(s):

Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽

Daniel Arku ◽

Neda Alrawashdh ◽

Briana Choi ◽

Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

The Other ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Treatment Comparison ◽

Comparative Cost ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT IN THAILAND

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462318003604 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (6) ◽

pp. 584-592

Author(s):

Chalakorn Chanatittarat ◽

Usa Chaikledkaew ◽

Naraporn Prayoonwiwat ◽

Sasitorn Siritho ◽

Pakamas Pasogpakdee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Sclerosis ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Best Supportive Care ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Essential Medicines ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

Cost Effective Treatment

Objectives:Although interferon beta-1a (IFNß−1a), 1b (IFNß−1b), and fingolimod have been approved as multiple sclerosis (MS) treatments, they have not yet been included on the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) formulary in Thailand. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of MS treatments compared with best supportive care (BSC) based on a societal perspective in Thailand.Methods:A Markov model with cost and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length was conducted for relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) patients. Cost and outcome data were obtained from published studies, collected from major MS clinics in Thailand and a discount rate of 3 percent was applied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results:When compared with BSC, the ICERs for patients with RRMS aged 35 years receiving fingolimod, IFNβ−1b, and IFNβ−1a were 33,000, 12,000, and 42,000 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. At the Thai societal willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of USD 4,500 per QALY gained, BSC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (49 percent), whereas IFNβ−1b and fingolimod treatments showed lower chance being cost-effective at 25 percent and 18 percent, respectively.Conclusions:Compared with fingolimod and interferon treatments, BSC remains to be the most cost-effective treatment for RRMS in Thailand based on a WTP threshold of USD 4,500 per QALY gained. The results do not support the inclusion of fingolimod or interferon in the NLEM for the treatment of RRMS unless their prices are decreased or special schema arranged.

Download Full-text

A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽

10.1177/1460408617738810 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 45-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maxwell S Renna ◽

Cristiano van Zeller ◽

Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽

Cherlyn Tong ◽

Jasmine Gambini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Cost Utility Analysis ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

One Year ◽

Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

Download Full-text

Cancer immunotherapy in routine cost‐effective cancer care?

EMBO Molecular Medicine ◽

10.15252/emmm.201809660 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 10 (11) ◽

Author(s):

Sir Marc Feldmann

Keyword(s):

Cancer Immunotherapy ◽

Cancer Care ◽

Cost Effective

Download Full-text

Smoking Cessation Therapy is a Cost-Effective Intervention to Avoid Tooth Loss in Subjects With Periodontitis – An Economic Evaluation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-228724/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Maria Luisa Silveira Souto ◽

Fernanda Campos Almeida Carrer ◽

Mariana Minatel Braga ◽

Cláudio Mendes Pannuti

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Oral Health ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Tooth Loss ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Health Related ◽

Per Oral ◽

Smoking Cessation Therapy

Abstract Background: Smokers present a higher prevalence and severity of periodontitis and, consequently, higher prevalence of tooth loss. Smoking cessation improves the response to periodontal treatment and reduces tooth loss. So, the aim of this study was evaluated the efficiency in resources allocation when implementing smoking cessation therapy vs. its non-implementation in smokers with periodontitis. Methods: We adopted the Brazilian public system perspective to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per tooth loss avoided) and cost-utility (cost per oral-related quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained) of implementing smoking cessation therapy. Base-case was defined as a 48 years-old male subject and horizon of 30 years. Effects and costs were combined in a decision analytic modeling framework to permit a quantitative approach aiming to estimate the value of the consequences of smoking cessation therapy adjusted for their probability of occurrence. Markov models were carried over annual cycles. Sensitivity analysis tested methodological assumptions. Results: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy had an average incremental cost of U$60.58 per tooth loss avoided and U$4.55 per oral related-QALY gained. Considering uncertainties, the therapy could be cost-effective in the most part of simulated cases, even being cheaper and more effective in 53% of cases in which the oral-health related outcome is used as effect. Considering a willingness-to-pay of US$100 per health effect, smoking cessation therapy was cost-effective, respectively, in 81% and 100% of cases in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy may be cost-effective, considering the avoidance of tooth loss and oral health-related consequences to patients.

Download Full-text

VALUE-BASED MEDICINE, COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS WHAT IS COST-EFFECTIVE?

Evidence-Based Ophthalmology ◽

10.1097/ieb.0b013e3181e461a0 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 180-186

Author(s):

Gary C. Brown ◽

Melissa M. Brown ◽

Peter Kertes ◽

Heidi B. Lieske ◽

Philip Alex Lieske ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Cost Utility Analysis ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Based Medicine

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: an early economic evaluation

Canadian Liver Journal ◽

10.3138/canlivj-2021-0011 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. e20210011

Author(s):

Chanh-Phong Tran ◽

John J Kim ◽

Jordan J Feld ◽

William WL Wong

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Drug Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Decompensated Cirrhosis ◽

Obeticholic Acid ◽

Potential Cost ◽

Alcoholic Steatohepatitis ◽

Early Results

Background: Currently, there are no pharmacological options available for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In the 18-month interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REGENERATE), early results demonstrated that obeticholic acid (OCA) 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis with no worsening of NASH among patients with NASH and fibrosis compared to placebo (PBO). This study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of OCA compared to PBO in NASH patients. Methods: A state-transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing two treatment strategies, PBO and OCA 25 mg, from a Canadian public payer perspective. The model time horizon was lifetime with annual cycle lengths. Cost and utility parameters were discounted at 1.5% annually. The efficacy data were obtained from the REGENERATE trial, and costs and utilities were derived from other published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: Treatment with OCA led to reductions of 3.58% in decompensated cirrhosis cases, 3.95% in hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.88% in liver transplant, and 6.01% in liver-related death. However, at an annual price of CDN$36,000, OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $815,514 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). An 88% reduction in drug price to an annual cost of $4,300 would make OCA cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusions: OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO, despite demonstrating clinical benefits due to a high drug cost. A significant price reduction would be needed to make the drug cost-effective.

Download Full-text