PD58 Cost-Effectiveness Of Quinolone For Acute External Otitis In Brazil

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 150-150
Author(s):  
Gustavo de Oliveira ◽  
Camila Chacarolli ◽  
Sarah Silva ◽  
Artur Felipe de Brito
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Polymyxin B ◽  
External Otitis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Effectiveness Model ◽  
Life Years

Introduction:In Brazil, the medicines marketed for acute external otitis are ciprofloxacin and the combination polymyxin B, neomycin, and fluocinolone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the proportion of cure and cost-effectiveness of quinolone versus polymyxin B, neomycin, and steroid combined (PNS) for acute external otitis from the perspective of the Brazilian Public health system.Methods:A systematic review was conducted using Medline, Cochrane Library, CRD and Lilacs databases. Studies evaluating quinolones versus PNS in the treatment of acute external otitis were included. A cost-effectiveness model was made using a decision tree, considering the direct cost of treatment. Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted, considering the confidence interval of clinical outcomes and a 15 percent variation in cost.Results:The proportion of cure in up to 10 days was 70.1 percent with quinolone and 60.4 percent with PNS (p = 0.004). The treatment costs were BRL 16.22 (USD 5.02) with quinolone and BRL 3.04 (USD 0.94) with PNS. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was BRL 136.25 (USD 42.15) per cure in up to 10 days for quinolone in relation to PNS. This value was more sensitive to clinical outcomes, ranging from BRL 95.48 (USD 29.54) to BRL 254.25 (USD 78.65) for cure with quinolone and from BRL 90.77 (USD 28.08) to BRL 262.57 (USD 81.23) for cure with PNS. These values should be considered with caution because acute external otitis is resolved within a few days and treatment effectiveness is not measured by life years.Conclusions:There are few studies on therapeutic alternatives available in Brazil. Through the available evidence, there is a lack of results on the effects attributed to each drug. Considering the higher effectiveness, low cost and rational use of antibiotics, quinolone is considered a cost-effective alternative for acute external otitis in Brazil.

scholarly journals Systematic review of health economic studies in cranial neurosurgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. E2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Hyung A. Ryu ◽  
Michael M. H. Yang ◽  
Sandeep Muram ◽  
W. Bradley Jacobs ◽  
Steven Casha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVEAs the cost of health care continues to increase, there is a growing emphasis on evaluating the relative economic value of treatment options to guide resource allocation. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of cranial neurosurgery procedures.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, focusing on themes of economic evaluation and cranial neurosurgery following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were publications of cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis between 1995 and 2017 in which health utility outcomes in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were used. Three independent reviewers conducted the study appraisal, data abstraction, and quality assessment, with differences resolved by consensus discussion.RESULTSIn total, 3485 citations were reviewed, with 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of those, 34 studies were published in the last 5 years. The most common subspecialty focus was cerebrovascular (32%), followed by neurooncology (26%) and functional neurosurgery (24%). Twenty-eight (53%) studies, using a willingness to pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY or LY, found a specific surgical treatment to be cost-effective. In addition, there were 11 (21%) studies that found a specific surgical option to be economically dominant (both cost saving and having superior outcome), including endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, epilepsy surgery for drug-refractory epilepsy, and endoscopic pituitary tumor resection.CONCLUSIONSThere is an increasing number of cost-effectiveness studies in cranial neurosurgery, especially within the last 5 years. Although there are numerous procedures, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, that have been conclusively proven to be cost-effective, there remain promising interventions in current practice that have yet to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer Surveillance Among BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Systematic Review

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaxin Li ◽  
Ziqi Jia ◽  
Menglu Zhang ◽  
Gang Liu ◽  
Zeyu Xing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Mutation Carriers ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundBRCA1/2 mutation carriers are suggested with regular breast cancer surveillance screening strategies using mammography with supplementary MRI as an adjunct tool in Western countries. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, however, the benefits of screening modalities remain controversial among different mutated genes and screening schedules.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to collect and compare the results of different cost-effectiveness analyses. A simulated model was used to predict the impact of screening strategies in the target group on cost, life-year gained, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsNine cost-effectiveness studies were included. Combined mammography and MRI strategy is cost-effective in BRCA1 mutation carriers for the middle-aged group (age 35 to 54). BRCA2 mutation carriers are less likely to benefit from adjunct MRI screening, which implies that mammography alone would be sufficient from a cost-effectiveness perspective, regardless of dense breast cancer.ConclusionsPrecision screening strategies among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers should be conducted according to the acceptable ICER, i.e., a combination of mammography and MRI for BRCA1 mutation carriers and mammography alone for BRCA2 mutation carriers.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO, identifier CRD42020205471.

scholarly journals Cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lupus nephritis in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (13) ◽  
pp. 1125-1141
Author(s):  
Soyoung Kim ◽  
Adrian Yit Reen Ooi ◽  
Thomas Stephens ◽  
Hongsi Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Original Form ◽  
Health States ◽  
Effectiveness Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Tacrolimus Therapy ◽  
The Cost

Aim: Therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) requires treatment with immunosuppressive regimens, often including intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCY), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine. Additionally, tacrolimus (original form or generic) is recommended to treat LN patients in Asia, including China. However, the cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus therapy has not previously been assessed. We aimed to estimate the cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus in the treatment of moderate-to-severe LN versus standard therapies in China. Materials & methods: This cost–effectiveness model combined a decision-tree/Markov-model structure to map transitions between health states during induction and maintenance treatment phases. Induction with tacrolimus, IVCY or MMF, was followed by tacrolimus, MMF or azathioprine maintenance. Results: According to the model, during induction, complete remission rates were higher with tacrolimus versus IVCY (relative risk 1.40 vs IVCY [deterministic sensitivity analysis minimum 0.92, maximum 2.13]) and time to response was shorter. Relapse rates were lower with tacrolimus versus azathioprine or MMF during maintenance. Tacrolimus induction and maintenance was the most cost-effective regimen, incurring the lowest total costs (CN¥180,448) with the highest quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusion: The model demonstrated that tacrolimus use in both induction and maintenance therapy may be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for LN in China.

COMPLETION ANGIOGRAPHY FOR SURGICALLY TREATED CEREBRAL ANEURYSMS

Neurosurgery ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 1162-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherman C. Stein ◽  
Mark G. Burnett ◽  
Eric L. Zager ◽  
Howard A. Riina ◽  
Seema S. Sonnad
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cerebral Aneurysms ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Threshold ◽  
Intraoperative Angiography ◽  
Aneurysm Clipping ◽  
Effectiveness Model ◽  
Effective Form ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Completion Angiography

Abstract OBJECTIVE To compare cost-effectiveness of different strategies for completion angiography after cerebral aneurysm clipping. METHODS A literature search was used to determine the outcome probabilities and costs of various strategies. The pooled results were used in a Markov cost-effectiveness model to compare quality-adjusted life-years and costs of each strategy. Sensitivity (threshold) analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were used to test variation in the model. RESULTS Routine (for all cases) intraoperative angiography proved to be slightly more cost-effective than selective (only for cases deemed “high risk”) intraoperative angiography, being both less costly and more effective. Routine postoperative angiography was the least cost-effective. However, in centers whose rates of clip-induced arterial compromise are much lower than the averages reported in the literature, selective angiography might be warranted. CONCLUSION Routine intraoperative angiography remains the most cost-effective form of completion angiography after aneurysm clipping, at least at our present state of technology.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Versus Second-Line Use of Daratumumab in Older, Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.20.01849
Author(s):  
Kishan K. Patel ◽  
Smith Giri ◽  
Terri L. Parker ◽  
Noffar Bar ◽  
Natalia Neparidze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Line Setting

PURPOSE The MAIA trial found that addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd). However, daratumumab is a costly treatment and is administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is cost-effective to use daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with reserving its use until later lines of therapy. METHODS We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of transplant-ineligible patients treated with daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with a strategy of reserving daratumumab until the second-line. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for first-line daratumumab versus second-line daratumumab from a US payer perspective. RESULTS First-line daratumumab was associated with an improvement of 0.52 QALYs and 0.66 discounted life-years compared with second-line daratumumab. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures ($1,434,937 v $1,112,101 in US dollars), an incremental cost of $322,836 for first-line daratumumab led to an ICER of $618,018 per QALY. The cost of daratumumab would need to be decreased by 67% for first-line daratumumab to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION Using daratumumab in the first-line setting for transplant-ineligible patients may not be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying daratumumab until subsequent lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit healthcare costs without significantly compromising clinical outcomes. Mature overall survival data are necessary to more fully evaluate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

PP409 Cost-Effectiveness Of Ruxolitinib For Patients With Myelofibrosis: A Review Of The Literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 35-35
Author(s):  
Gizem Karakuleli ◽  
Leela Barham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Discrete State ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionMyelofibrosis (MF) is a rare (annual incidence estimated to be 1/100,000 in Europe), chronic hematologic disorder associated with morbidity and mortality as well as the risk of evolution to acute myeloid leukemia. Ruxolitinib (Jakavi®, Novartis) is the first JAK 1/2 inhibitor approved by the FDA and EMA in 2011 in treating MF. Ruxolitinib is considered a high-cost and life-time treatment. UK-based estimates of the cost of treatment are in the region of GBP43,000/year/patient (in 2013). Against the background of the challenge of treatments for rare diseases reaching cost-effectiveness thresholds, this study identified, collected, and appraised the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib in the treatment of MF.MethodsA systematic approach was taken to conducting the literature review. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library based on search terms informed by PICO: myelofibrosis, ruxolitinib, best available therapy/standard of care, and cost-effectiveness/cost-utility/pharmacoeconomics. The search was limited to studies published in the English language. A narrative synthesis was used to evaluate studies and the CHEERS checklist to explore the quality of reporting of the cost-effectiveness analysis.ResultsThe narrative synthesis included five studies conducted in the UK, Portugal, Chile, Canada, and Finland. All cost-effectiveness analyses used data from the same two large, randomized controlled, double-blind, phase III studies (COMFORT-I and -II). Ruxolitinib was compared to the best available therapy (BAT), including hydroxyurea, no medication, and prednisone/prednisolone. Perspectives and included costs varied among analyses. Markov models and discrete state cohort models were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or life years (LY) gained.These analyses estimated the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per QALY of (converted into USD, if appropriate, at the historic average annual exchange rate) GBP44,905 in the UK (2013; USD 70,226), EUR40,000 in Portugal (2016; USD44,272), USD54,500 (2016), CAD61,444 in Canada (2012; USD61,474), and EUR42,367 in Finland (2015; USD42,027). Based upon the cost-effectiveness thresholds applied in each of these countries, ruxolitinib was found to be universally cost-effective, albeit with price adjustments as part of the wider pricing and reimbursement processes used in these countries.ConclusionsRuxolitinib was found to be cost-effective in treating MF informed by different types of models and from different perspectives; however, there was some uncertainty around available data due to limited data sources.

Cost-effectiveness of School Hearing Screening Programs: A Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 162 (6) ◽  
pp. 826-838
Author(s):  
Michael Yong ◽  
Jiahe Liang ◽  
Jeromie Ballreich ◽  
Jane Lea ◽  
Brian D. Westerberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Public Health Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Hearing Screening ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Objective School hearing screening is a public health intervention that can improve care for children who experience hearing loss that is not detected on or develops after newborn screening. However, implementation of school hearing screening is sporadic and supported by mixed evidence to its economic benefit. This scoping review provides a summary of all published cost-effectiveness studies regarding school hearing screening programs globally. At the time of this review, there were no previously published reviews of a similar nature. Data Sources A structured search was applied to 4 databases: PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods The database search was carried out by 2 independent researchers, and results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies that included a cost analysis of screening programs for school-aged children in the school environment were eligible for inclusion. Studies that involved evaluations of only neonatal or preschool programs were excluded. Results Four of the 5 studies that conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis reported that school hearing screening was cost-effective through the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) via either quality- or disability-adjusted life years. One study reported that a new school hearing screening program dominated the existing program; 2 studies reported ICERs ranging from 1079 to 4304 international dollars; and 1 study reported an ICER of £2445. One study reported that school-entry hearing screening was not cost-effective versus no screening. Conclusion The majority of studies concluded that school hearing screening was cost-effective. However, significant differences in methodology and region-specific estimates of model inputs limit the generalizability of these findings.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of BCG Vaccination against Tuberculosis in Indonesia: A Model-Based Study

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 707
Author(s):  
Afifah Machlaurin ◽  
Franklin Christiaan Karel Dolk ◽  
Didik Setiawan ◽  
Tjipke Sytse van der Werf ◽  
Maarten J. Postma
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Bcg Vaccination ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), the only available vaccine for tuberculosis (TB), has been applied for decades. The Indonesian government recently introduced a national TB disease control programme that includes several action plans, notably enhanced vaccination coverage, which can be strengthened through underpinning its favourable cost-effectiveness. We designed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of Indonesia’s current BCG vaccination programme. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated from the perspectives of both society and healthcare. The robustness of the analysis was confirmed through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Using epidemiological data compiled for Indonesia, BCG vaccination at a price US$14 was estimated to be a cost-effective strategy in controlling TB disease. From societal and healthcare perspectives, ICERs were US$104 and US$112 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. The results were robust for variations of most variables in the univariate analysis. Notably, the vaccine’s effectiveness regarding disease protection, vaccination costs, and case detection rates were key drivers for cost-effectiveness. The PSA results indicated that vaccination was cost-effective even at US$175 threshold in 95% of cases, approximating the monthly GDP per capita. Our findings suggest that this strategy was highly cost-effective and merits prioritization and extension within the national TB programme. Our results may be relevant for other high endemic low- and middle-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document