OP131 Cost-Effectiveness Of Dexamethasone And Adalimumab For Uveitis

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 60-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inigo Bermejo ◽  
Hazel Squires ◽  
Edith Poku ◽  
Katy Cooper ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Systemic Corticosteroids ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Effective Use

INTRODUCTION:Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye whose underlying cause may be infectious or non-infectious. The objective of our study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the dexamethasone implant and adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis.METHODS:A Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the relevant evidence. Quality of life data collected in three key randomized-controlled trials (1-3) was used to estimate the interventions effectiveness compared with the trials comparator arms, which consisted of placebo plus limited current practice (LCP). An indirect treatment comparison between adalimumab and dexamethasone was considered inappropriate due to lack of necessary evidence. For adalimumab, patients with active and inactive uveitis were considered separately. Due to the short duration of the trials, the rate of blindness, an important complication of uveitis, was highly uncertain. Substantial exploratory analyses were therefore undertaken. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). Costs were calculated based on standard United Kingdom sources.RESULTS:The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of dexamethasone compared with LCP was GBP19,509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The estimated ICER of adalimumab compared with LCP was GBP94,523 and GBP317,547 per QALY in patients with active and inactive uveitis respectively. The factors with the largest impact upon the ICERs were the rate of blindness and the proportion of cases of blindness avoided by interventions.CONCLUSIONS:Dexamethasone and adalimumab resulted in health gains, but at significant extra costs, especially adalimumab which is unlikely to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. The results of the analysis are highly uncertain due to the limited availability of evidence on: the comparative effectiveness of dexamethasone, adalimumab and current practice; the effectiveness of treatments in avoiding blindness; and, the effectiveness of interventions in different subgroups.

scholarly journals Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

2019 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 1639-1644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Squires ◽  
Iñigo Bermejo ◽  
Edith N Poku ◽  
Katy Cooper ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Relative Proportion ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Relevant Evidence

BackgroundUveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research.MethodsA Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions’ effectiveness compared with the trial’s comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP.ConclusionsDexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.

scholarly journals Adalimumab for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

2019 ◽  
Vol 103 (11) ◽  
pp. 1633-1638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inigo Bermejo ◽  
Hazel Squires ◽  
Edith N Poku ◽  
Katy Cooper ◽  
John W Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Base Case

Background/AimsUveitis is inflammation inside the eye. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis and to identify areas for future research.MethodsA Markov model was built to estimate costs and benefits of the interventions. Systematic reviews were performed to identify the available relevant clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. Data collected in two key randomised controlled trials (VISUAL I and VISUAL II) were used to estimate the interventions’ effectiveness compared with the trials’ comparator arms (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources.ResultsThe estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adalimumab versus LCP for the base case are £92 600 and £318 075 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for active and inactive uveitis, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER varied from £15 579 to £120 653 and £35 642 to £800 775 per QALY for active and inactive uveitis.ConclusionThe estimated ICERs of adalimumab versus LCP are above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Adalimumab may be more cost-effective in patients with active uveitis at greater risk of blindness. However, there is an unmet need for additional primary data to provide more reliable estimates in several important areas, including effectiveness of adalimumab versus current practice (instead of LCP), incidence of long-term blindness, adalimumab effectiveness in avoiding blindness, and rates and time to remission while on adalimumab.

Cost Effectiveness of Elidel in the Management of Patients with Atopic Dermatitis in Canada

2004 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 405-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Coyle ◽  
Martin Barbeau
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Health Care Resources ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
New Treatments ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The Cost

Background: With increasing pressure on health care resources, it is necessary to demonstrate that new treatments are both effective and cost effective. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of pimecrolimus (Elidel) compared to usual therapy in the treatment of both adults and children with atopic eczema in Canada. Methods: Analysis was performed using a decision model which estimated the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from both a societal and health care perspective. Results: For children, Elidel leads an incremental cost per QALY of $38,000 from a societal perspective. For adults, the incremental cost per QALY was $35,000. Conclusion: Elidel will lead to an overall increase in costs but with an improvement in clinical outcomes. The cost effectiveness ratios for Elidel were consistently below $50,000 per QALY gained. Given previous funding decisions in Canada, Elidel may be considered a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Within trial cost-effectiveness of a structured lifestyle intervention in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes: Results from the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Zhang ◽  
Karen M. Atkinson ◽  
George Bray ◽  
Haiying Chen ◽  
Jeanne M. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifestyle Intervention ◽  
Health Utility Index ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Utility ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year

<b>OBJECTIVE </b>To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) compared to standard diabetes support and education (DSE) in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, as implemented in the Action for Health in Diabetes study. <p><b>RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS</b> Data were from 4,827 participants during the first 9 years of the study from 2001 to 2012. Information on Health Utility Index-2 and -3, SF-6D, and Feeling Thermometer [FT]), cost of delivering the interventions, and health expenditures were collected during the study. CE was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Costs were in 2012 US dollars. </p> <p><b>RESULTS </b><a>Over the </a>9 years studied, the mean cumulative intervention costs and mean cumulative health care expenditures were $11,275 and $64,453 per person for ILI and $887 and $68,174 for DSE. Thus, ILI cost $6,666 more per person than DSE. Additional QALYs gained by ILI were not statistically significant measured by the HUIs and were 0.17 and 0.16, respectively, measured by SF-6D and FT. The ICERs ranged from no health benefit with a higher cost based on HUIs, to $96,458/QALY and $43,169/QALY, respectively, based on SF-6D and FT. </p> <p><b>Conclusions </b>Whether<b> </b>ILI was cost-effective over the 9-year period is unclear because different health utility measures led to different conclusions. </p>

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.

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]

Cost–effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Zhichao He ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Chongchong Guo ◽  
Jianli Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Egf Receptor ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost–effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

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

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for cluster B personality disorders

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djøra I. Soeteman ◽  
Roel Verheul ◽  
Jos Delimon ◽  
Anke M. M. A. Meerman ◽  
Ellen van den Eijnden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Day Hospital ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Cluster B Personality Disorders ◽  
Effective Choice ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundRecommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence.AimsA formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders.MethodA probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of €12 274 per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at €113 298. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at €56 325 and €286 493 per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at €9895 and €155 797 per recovered patient-year, and €43 427 and €561 188 per QALY.ConclusionsOut-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

Abstract T P309: Cost Effectiveness for Intra-arterial Stroke Therapy Achieved with Image-based Selection and not with Type of Device

Stroke ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda Reese ◽  
Scott Young ◽  
Kevin Stands ◽  
William Hicks ◽  
Jenniffer Mejilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Stroke Therapy ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Good Outcome ◽  
Procedure Cost ◽  
The Individual

Background: Our aim was to determine if stentriever treatment results in cost effectiveness over Merci thrombectomy and to identify a cost-effective imaging threshold for intra-arterial treatment selection. Methods: With institutional approval, we retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing intra-arterial stroke therapy from March 2011 to March 2013 at our center. We collected the following data: stroke score, occlusion site, baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), device used, reperfusion, hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Score (mRS), and procedure cost. Using published criteria, a quality-adjusted life year (QUALY) value of 0.74 and 0.4 was ascribed to a mRS outcome 2 respectively. Using the procedural mean cost, we calculated an incremental cost efficiency ratio (ICER) for stentriever versus Merci embolectomy and for interventions done for a baseline ASPECTS above and below the following thresholds: > 6, > 7, > 8, and > 9. Using established criteria, we identified a cost effective patient selection if the ICER was positive and less than $50,000/QUALY. Results: Our cohort included 122 patients, 45 treated with Merci in the first year and 78 with stentrievers in year two. Reperfusion occurred in 79% (87% in the stentriever and 64% with Merci groups, p=0.002). The good outcome rate for the entire cohort was 40% (43% good outcomes in the stentriever and 33% in the Merci groups, p=0.21) respectively. Stentriever interventions were not cost effective compared to Merci embolectomy (ICER > $500,000/QUALY). Using baseline ASPECTS > 6 and > 7 as a selection criteria for intervention, the good outcome rate was 42% and 44% respectively but with a negative ICER due to higher costs in treating those with lower scores. For those with an ASPECTS > 8 and > 9, the good outcome rate was 44% and 54% with an ICER of $40,000/QUALY and $24,000/QUALY respectively. Conclusions: At our institution, despite better outcome and reperfusion rates, stentriever interventions are yet to show a cost benefit. Optimizing patient selection by using the ASPECTS scoring system has led to improved clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Further prospective study may validate this technique for greater value to the individual patient and the health system at large.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document