COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY PROPHYLAXIS, COMPARED WITH ON-DEMAND TREATMENT, FOR PATIENTS WITH SEVERE HEMOPHILIA TYPE A IN COLOMBIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 337-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Héctor Eduardo Castro Jaramillo ◽  
Mabel Moreno Viscaya ◽  
Aurelio E. Mejia

Objectives: This article presents a cost-utility analysis from the Colombian health system perspective comparing primary prophylaxis to on-demand treatment using exogenous clotting factor VIII (FVIII) for patients with severe hemophilia type A.Methods: We developed a Markov model to estimate expected costs and outcomes (measured as quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) for each strategy. Transition probabilities were estimated using published studies; utility weights were obtained from a sample of Colombian patients with hemophilia and costs were gathered using local data. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of results.Results: The additional cost per QALY gained of primary prophylaxis compared with on-demand treatment was 105,081,022 Colombian pesos (COP) (55,204 USD), and thus not considered cost-effective according to a threshold of up to three times the current Colombian gross domestic product (GDP) per-capita. When primary prophylaxis was provided throughout life using recombinant FVIII (rFVIII), which is much costlier than FVIII, the additional cost per QALY gained reached 174,159,553 COP (91,494 USD).Conclusions: using a decision rule of up to three times the Colombian GDP per capita, primary prophylaxis (with either FVIII or rFVIII) would not be considered as cost-effective in this country. However, a final decision on providing or preventing patients from primary prophylaxis as a gold standard of care for severe hemophilia type A should also consider broader criteria than the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results itself. Only a price reduction of exogenous FVIII of 50 percent or more would make primary prophylaxis cost-effective in this context.

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 759-774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander H. Miners ◽  
Caroline A. Sabin ◽  
Keith H. Tolley ◽  
Christine A. Lee

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell S Renna ◽  
Cristiano van Zeller ◽  
Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽  
Cherlyn Tong ◽  
Jasmine Gambini ◽  
...  

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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-186
Author(s):  
Gary C. Brown ◽  
Melissa M. Brown ◽  
Peter Kertes ◽  
Heidi B. Lieske ◽  
Philip Alex Lieske ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 352-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pa-Chun Wang ◽  
Chul-Ho Jang ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Shu ◽  
Chih-Jaan Tai ◽  
Ko-Tsung Chu

OBJECTIVE: To undertake cost-utility analysis for tympanomastoid surgery to analyze its cost-effectiveness in treating adult chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with CSOM were evaluated with the Chronic Ear Survey (CES) before and 1 year after tympanomastoid surgery. Direct health care cost data during the 1st year after operation were retrieved. The utility gain was defined as change in the CES total score. The cost-utility ratio (CUR) was defined as cost per utility gain. Patients were stratified by disease type into wet-ear and dry-ear groups. RESULTS: The average total direct cost attributable to tympanomastoid surgery is (in New Taiwan dollars [NT$]) 45,716.3 in the 1st postoperative year, and the average CUR is NT$ 1850.9. The lower CUR of NT$ 1280.9 for the wet-ear group is due to the greater utility gain (37.6 ± 3.4 versus 24.4 ± 6.8, P >0.05) despite its higher cost (NT$ 48,163.2 versus NT$ 38,419.7, P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treating continuously or intermittently draining ears is more cost-effective, as compared with managing a quiescent infection, because of its favorable utility gain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document