COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS MINILAPAROTOMY CHOLECYSTECTOMY FOR GALLSTONE DISEASE

2001 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anurag Srivastava ◽  
Guddanti Srinivas ◽  
Mahesh Chandra Misra ◽  
Chandrakant S. Pandav ◽  
Vuthaluru Seenu ◽  
...  

Objective: To evaluate the total cost of minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and perform a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis.Methods: One hundred adult subjects with painful gallstone disease were randomized: 59 cases for LC and 41 cases for MC. Patients with gallstones shown on ultrasound with normal common bile duct and no history of icterus were included after an informed consent. Cases with acute cholecystitis and raised alkaline phosphatase were excluded. LC was performed using CO2 insufflation and a Storz 2D video camera. MC was done by transverse rectus cutting incision. Outcome was coded as success or failure. Success was defined as operation without injury to bile duct, viscera or vessels, minimal pain and discomfort at 4 weeks, no wound infection up to 4 weeks, and resumption of work within 2 weeks of operation. The total cost of each case included cost of investigations, cost of disposable articles for operation, cost of drugs, cost of hospital stay, and cost of operation including anesthesia. LC and MC were done with reusable instruments. A “societal viewpoint” has been taken in the cost calculations.Results: There were 50/59 successful outcomes in LC and 15/40 outcomes in MC group. Total cost for LC was 386,769 rupees (Rs) and for MC was Rs 205,041. CE in LC was Rs 7,735 and in MC was Rs 13,669. Incremental CE ratio comparing LC with MC was 3,028.33.Conclusion: LC is a more cost-effective method for treatment of gallstone disease.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e000526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Greco ◽  
Louise Knight ◽  
Willington Ssekadde ◽  
Sophie Namy ◽  
Dipak Naker ◽  
...  

IntroductionThis paper presents the cost and cost-effectiveness of the Good School Toolkit (GST), a programme aimed at reducing physical violence perpetrated by school staff to students in Uganda.MethodsThe effectiveness of the Toolkit was tested with a cluster randomised controlled trial in 42 primary schools in Luwero District, Uganda. A full economic costing evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted alongside the trial. Both financial and economic costs were collected retrospectively from the provider’s perspective to estimate total and unit costs.ResultsThe total cost of setting up and running the Toolkit over the 18-month trial period is estimated at US$397 233, excluding process monitor (M&E) activities. The cost to run the intervention is US$7429 per school annually, or US$15 per primary school pupil annually, in the trial intervention schools. It is estimated that the intervention has averted 1620 cases of past-week physical violence during the 18-month implementation period. The total cost per case of violence averted is US$244, and the annual implementation cost is US$96 per case averted during the trial.ConclusionsThe GST is a cost-effective intervention for reducing violence against pupils in primary schools in Uganda. It compares favourably against other violence reduction interventions in the region.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16150-e16150
Author(s):  
J. Godoy ◽  
A. F. Cardona ◽  
H. Cáceres ◽  
J. M. Otero ◽  
M. Lujan ◽  
...  

e16150 Background: Renal cell carcinoma has increased its incidence by 126% since 1950. A local study developed a complete economic evaluation of sunitinib versus IFN in first-line treatment of mRCC in Colombia, finding that sunitinib was more cost-useful and cost-effective. Methods: A Markov model was developed using 6-week cycles for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four interventions (IFN, sunitinib, bevacizumab+IFN, sorafenib) approved as first-line treatment for mRCC in Colombia. The model used the third-party payer perspective and a 5-year time-line; it also presumed that all the patients (pts) continued with active treatment until progression when it became acceptable to continue with a second-line treatment or BSC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves of IFN were used as reference framework; they were obtained form a published clinical trial. The hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were estimated for comparing new generation medicaments with IFN. The information about frequency of use and health service cost units consumed in Colombia was taken from a series of 24 pts treated in Manizales, Pereira, Medellín and Bogotá. Service costs were requested from an external consultant and corresponded to the average value billed by the EPSs, calculated from 33 sources of information which were representative of the country's market. The cost of the medicaments was obtained from LCLC. The costs and benefits were discounted annually at 3%. (all cost are presented in Colombian pesos Col$ 2008 with an exchange rate 1 USD = 1836.20 Col$). Results: Incremental analysis indicated a difference of 41.1 million Col$ in the average total cost of treatment when Sunitinib was compared to IFN; in contrast, comparing sorafenib and Bevacizumab+INF to sunitinib demonstrated that the average total cost was less for the sunitinib by 8.3 and 104.2 million Col$, respectively. Additionally, the ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness by life years (LY) gained demonstrated sunitinib's simple dominance over sorafenib and the combination of bevacizumab+IFN, and an average by LY gained of 100.5 million Col$ compared to IFN. Conclusions: Sunitinib is the most cost-effective option as first-line treatment for mRCC pts in Colombia. [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
jefferson buendia ◽  
Ranniery Acuña-Cordero

Abstract BackgroundPharmacological treatment for bronchiolitis is primarily supportive because bronchodilators, steroids, and antibiotics, show little benefit. Clinical studies have suggested that nebulized 3% hypertonic solution is useful for infants with bronchiolitis. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the HS inhalations in infant bronchiolitis in a tropical country Methods Decision tree analysis was used to calculate the expected costs and QALYs. All cost and use of resources were collected directly from medical invoices of 193 patient hospitalized with diagnosis of bronchiolitis in tertiary centers, of Rionegro, Colombia. The utility values applied to QALYs calculations were collected from the literature. The economic analysis was carried out from a societal perspective.ResultsThe model showed that nebulized 3% hypertonic solution, was associated with lower total cost than controls (US $200vs US $240 average cost per patient), and higher QALYs ( 0.92 vs 0.91 average per patient); showing dominance. A position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Conclusion The nebulized 3% hypertonic solution was cost-effective in the inpatient treatment of infant bronchiolitis. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other tropical countries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 47-60
Author(s):  
M. A. Aristov ◽  
O. M. Melnychuk

The aim – to conduct clinical effectiveness, meta-analysis of 30 and 120-days mortality data, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with severe acute decompensated chronic heart failure (ADCHF) who require inotropic support. Materials and methods. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for direct randomized clinical trials of levosimendan treatment compared with dobutamine in patients with ADCHF. The clinical efficacy of levosimendan and dobutamine was analyzed. Pharmacoeconomic analysis was carried out using the cost-effectiveness method with an assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A decision tree model of levosimendan or dobutamine treatments was constructed. The efficacy endpoints and impact on the budget were analyzed in terms of long-term effectiveness of levosimendan and dobutamine use. Discounted was conducted with rate of 3 %. Sensitivity analysis was carried out in terms of price changing of drugs, the cost of drugs in mg, the likelihood of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon and survival in the long term.Results and discussion. Analysis of clinical data and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials found that mortality rates with levosimendan and dobutamine in the 30-day period were 9.6 % and 13.8 %, RR 0.71 (95 % CI 0.53–0.95) and in the 120-day period – 13.5 % and 25.2 %, RR 0.54 (95 % CI 0.32–0.92), respectively. The total cost of the course of treatment, taking into account the price of the drug, medical devices, staff services, diagnostic procedures and treatment of adverse reactions when using levosimendan, was 34 003.02 UAH per patient and 18 787.28 UAH when treated with dobutamine. The weighted average hospital stay was 6.4 days in case of levosimendan treatment and 7.5 days of dobutamine treatment. Extrapolation of the data from clinical trials to the 3-year survival rate of patients allowed us to determine an additional indicator of efficacy – the number of life years saved with levosimendan – 2.64 and 2.37 with dobutamine treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis found that levosimendan is more efficient but more expensive technology compare to dobutamine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the additional life year saved of a patient with severe CHF is 43,473.55 UAH, which is 6 times less than the likely threshold of willingness to pay in Ukraine.Conclusions. The multivariate sensitivity analysis detected the model sustainability to the most crucial parameters of the model – drug price; the cost of drugs associated with their actual use in mg, the possibility of re-hospitalization of the patient in a 3-year horizon, and long-term survival, which is associated with the time horizon of the model. The total cost of a cohort of patients with ADCHF in Ukraine when using scenario 1 (100 % distribution of costs for dobutamine treatment) over 5 years is 268 188 351.94 UAH, when using scenario 2 (100 % distribution for treatment with levosimendan) total budget costs will be in amount of 485 393 073.09 UAH, if scenario 3 is applied (gradual 5 % transition in the treatment of patients with ADCHF with dobutamine for treatment with levosimendan within 5 years), the total budget costs will amount to 289 916 431.92 UAH


Author(s):  
Danielle M. Gillard ◽  
Jeffrey D. Sharon

Abstract Purpose of Review To summarize and critically review recent literature on the relative cost-effectiveness of hearing augmentation versus stapes surgery for the treatment of otosclerosis. Recent Findings Otosclerosis leads to reduced patient quality of life, which can be ameliorated by either stapes surgery, or hearing aid usage. The success of stapes surgery is high, and the risks of serious postoperative complications are low. Hearing aids don’t have the complications of surgery but are associated with long-term costs. Cost-effectiveness models have shown that stapes surgery is a cost-effective method for treating otosclerosis. Summary Both stapes surgery and hearing aids can improve patient-reported quality of life in otosclerosis. Stapes surgery has larger upfront costs and surgical risks, but hearing aids are associated with longer lifetime costs. Stapes surgery is cost-effective for the treatment of otosclerosis.


Buildings ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 102
Author(s):  
Yovko Ivanov Antonov ◽  
Per Heiselberg ◽  
Flourentzos Flourentzou ◽  
Michal Zbigniew Pomianowski

Renovation of existing buildings is an indispensable part of achieving European efficiency and environmental targets. This paper applies different assessment methodologies to find optimal renovation, given different evaluation criteria. The performed literature study identifies the cost-optimal methodology employing Life Cycle Cost (LCC) calculation as one of the most common assessment methods. This paper proposes a new renovation assessment method targeted to the early design phases of specific building projects. The method has a simple structure, and can be used as a roadmap of necessary activities for obtaining solid building knowledge and required energy and cost calculations. The methodology is based on linking economic and energy efficiency parameters into defined cost-effective value, calculated for all investigated renovation actions. The cost-effectiveness value is used for ranking and selecting the most appropriate single renovation actions to form renovation packages, which can be further examined in detail (for example, with LCC). To demonstrate the method, evaluate the strengths, and identify the weaknesses, it is applied to case study buildings in Denmark and Switzerland. The results show that, in the initial stage, the proposed cost-effectiveness representation can be used successfully to compare and evaluate different envelope elements and systems. Cost-effectiveness also provides rational results on a package level. Further work is still required in the area of evaluation of energy supply and renewable energy production systems.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-21
Author(s):  
Onn Laingoen ◽  
Tawatchai Apidechkul ◽  
Panupong Upala ◽  
Ratipark Tamornpark ◽  
Chaleerat Foungnual ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis (TB) treatment and care in two Thai hospitals located on the borders with Myanmar and Laos. Design/methodology/approach A retrospective data collection was conducted to analyze all costs relevant to TB treatment and care from Mae Sai and Chiang Sean Hospitals. The cost related to TB treatment and care and the number of successful TB treatment from January 1 to December 31, 2017 were used for the calculation. The cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the outcomes. Findings In 2017, the total cost of the TB treatment and care program at Mae Sai Hospital was 482,728.94 baht for 57 TB patients. The cast per treated case per year was 8,468.93 baht. The C/E was 10,971.11 baht per successful TB treatment (44 successful cases). The total cost of the TB treatment and care program at Chiang Sean Hospital was 330,578.73 baht for 39 TB patients. The cost per treated case per year was 8,476.38 baht. The C/E was 22,038.58 baht per successful TB treatment (15 successful cases). The ICER was 5,246.56 baht. The Mae Sai Hospital model was more cost-effective in terms of the treatment and care provided to Burmese patients with TB than the Chiang Sean Hospital model for Laotian patients with TB. Originality/value To improve the cost-effectiveness of TB treatment and care programs for foreign patients in hospitals located on the Thai border, focus should be placed on patient follow-up at the community or village level.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendía ◽  
Ranniery Acuña-Cordero

Abstract Background Pharmacological treatment for bronchiolitis is primarily supportive because bronchodilators, steroids, and antibiotics, show little benefit. Clinical studies have suggested that nebulized 3% hypertonic solution is useful for infants with bronchiolitis. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the HS inhalations in infant bronchiolitis in a tropical country. Methods Decision tree analysis was used to calculate the expected costs and QALYs. All cost and use of resources were collected directly from medical invoices of 193 patient hospitalized with diagnosis of bronchiolitis in tertiary centers, of Rionegro, Colombia. The utility values applied to QALYs calculations were collected from the literature. The economic analysis was carried out from a societal perspective. Results The model showed that nebulized 3% hypertonic solution, was associated with lower total cost than controls (US $200vs US $240 average cost per patient), and higher QALYs (0.92 vs 0.91 average per patient); showing dominance. A position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Conclusion The nebulized 3% hypertonic solution was cost-effective in the inpatient treatment of infant bronchiolitis. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other tropical countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16793-e16793
Author(s):  
Myles Ingram ◽  
Brianna N Lauren ◽  
Yoanna S Pumpalova ◽  
Gulam Abbas Manji ◽  
Susan Elaine Bates ◽  
...  

e16793 Background: The 2019 NCCN guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC). Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and G-nP have yet to be directly compared in a prospective, randomized trial with BR/LA PDAC patients. The purpose of our study was to incorporate treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures to further inform clinical decision-making. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over twelve years. Adjuvant gemcitabine (GEM) was used as a comparator. The inputs for the model were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. We used single-institution retrospective studies to estimate our survival data in the absence of a prospective trial. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care (USD), QALYs, patient resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). Results: FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, totaling incremental QALYs of 0.21 at a cost of $52,845.96 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP was also on the efficiency frontier with an ICER of $46,430.73 compared to GEM. More patients received resection with FOLFIRINOX (82.15% vs. 72.40%), but had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($12,051.26 vs. $4,666.97). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the FOLFIRINOX ICER exceeds the WTP threshold when TRAE costs are higher and resection rates are lower. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3605-3605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory F. Guzauskas ◽  
Anthony Masaquel ◽  
Carolina Reyes ◽  
Kenneth Wilhelm ◽  
Tania Krivasi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. Obinutuzumab (G) was recently approved for the treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL) in patients who relapsed after or are refractory to a rituximab (R)-containing regimen. In the phase III open label GADOLIN study of patients with rituximab-refractory iNHL, patients received either bendamustine (B, 120 mg/m2, d1+2, c1-6) alone, or obinutuzumab (G 1000 mg (d1, 8, 15 c1, d1 c2-6) for up to six 28d cycles) plus B (90 mg/m2, d1+2, c1-6) followed by G monotherapy (100 mg every 2 mo for up to 2 years). The net clinical benefit and economic value of G+B vs. B in R-refractory patients and the larger relapse patient population have not been formally evaluated. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of G plus B followed by G monotherapy vs. B monotherapy based on results of the phase III GADOLIN trial in rituximab-refractory FL patients as well as model results for a refractory/relapse population. Methods. We developed a Markov model that utilized the GADOLIN trial's progression-free (PFS), and pooled G+B and B post-progression survival (PPS) through 4.5 years to model long-term patient PFS, progression, and death. We fit parametric curves to trial PFS and PPS data; PPS was used in lieu of immature overall survival (OS) data to model transitions to death from the progressed state. We used a U.S. registry of FL patients to inform the PFS and OS curves beyond the trial follow-up time to reflect a refractory/relapse patient population. The National LymphoCare Study is a disease-specific, prospective registry that enrolled more than 2,700 patients with newly diagnosed FL from 2004 to 2007 from more than 200 practice sites in the U.S. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in the results. Results. Treatment with G+B followed by G monotherapy led to an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to B-mono (1.23, 95% CR: -0.01, 2.38). The total cost of G+B was $114,815 and B-mono was $62,034, resulting in an incremental cost of $52,781. The average total cost was greater for G+B due primarily to increased drug and administration costs ($106,053 for G+B vs. $50,104 for B-mono), however this was offset by cost-savings for disease progression of -$4268 ($5,558 for G+B vs. $9,826 for B-mono). Adverse event costs were higher for G+B ($3,204) vs. B-mono ($2,103). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43,000 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, there was a 89% probability that G+B followed by G monotherapy was cost-effective versus B-mono at the $100,000 per QALY threshold. Conclusions. Our US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G+B followed by G monotherapy compared to B-mono is cost-effective in patients with FL who relapsed/refractory to a rituximab containing regimen. These findings are driven by the improvement in PFS with G+B treatment that lead to a projected increase in survival and decreased cost of treating disease progression. There was a high probability G+B was cost effective even when all parameters in the model were varied. In conclusion, G+B vs. B monotherapy in follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a R-containing regimen is very likely cost effective in the US. Disclosures Guzauskas: Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy. Masaquel:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech: Employment. Reyes:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Wilhelm:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Krivasi:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.: Employment. Veenstra:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document