Cost-Effectiveness: Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Vascular Dementia

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla L. Wong ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Philip E. Lee ◽  
Aslam H. Anis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cholinesterase Inhibitors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Background:Several randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments. However, given these drugs incur considerable cost, the economic argument for their use is less clear.Objective:To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for mild to moderate vascular dementia.Design:A decision analysis model using a 24-28 week time horizon was developed. Outcomes of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and probabilities of adverse events were extracted from a systematic review. Costs of adverse events, medications, and physician visits were obtained from local estimates. Robustness was tested with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.Interventions:Donepezil 5 mg daily, donepezil 10 mg daily, galantamine 16-24 mg daily, rivastigmine flexible dosing up to 6 mg twice daily, or memantine 10 mg twice daily versus standard care.Main Outcome Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per unit decrease in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) subscale.Results:Donepezil 10 mg daily was found to be the most cost-effective treatment with an ICER of $400.64 (95%CI, $281.10-$596.35) per unit decline in the ADAS-cog subscale. All other treatments were dominated by donepezil 10 mg, that is, more costly and less effective.Conclusion:From a societal perspective, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine was more effective but also more costly than standard care for mild to moderate vascular dementia. The donepezil 10 mg strategy was the most cost-effective and also dominated the other alternatives.

scholarly journals The Cost-effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs plus Proton-pump Inhibitors for Treating Osteoarthritis in Algeria

10.36469/9865 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadir Hammoumraoui ◽  
Sid Ahmed Kherraf ◽  
Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽  
Tarek A. Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Private Clinic ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but are more expensive. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for treating OA in Algeria. Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model from UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted for costeffectiveness analysis in OA patients aged ≥65 years. Patients could initiate treatment with celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs with/without omeprazole. Conditional probabilities were obtained from published clinical trials; effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained/patient. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer’s perspective. The average daily treatment costs and frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in August 2011 from a private clinic located in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: QALYs gained/patient over a 6-month horizon were higher with celecoxib (0.368) and celecoxib+PPI (0.40) versus comparators. The lowest expected cost/patient was associated with ibuprofen (US$134.76 versus US$175.67 with celecoxib+PPI, and US$177.57 with celecoxib). Celecoxib+PPI was the most cost-effective drug treatment, with an ICER of US$584.43, versus ibuprofen. Treatment with celecoxib alone showed an ICER of US$1,530.56 versus diclofenac+PPI. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product per capita in Algeria (US$7,500). Over 1-year, 3-year and 5-year horizons, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy showed higher QALYs/patient versus comparators, and decreasing ICERs. The ICER of celecoxib+PPI was lower than that of comparators over all time horizons. These findings were confirmed with CEACs generated via PSA. Conclusion: Using data from a single private clinic in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria, and after considering new adverse event risks, we showed that celecoxib with/without PPI co therapy is more cost-effective than ns-NSAID+PPI for treating OA patients aged ≥65 years. Celecoxib+PPI remains dominant over a 5-year horizon, making it the most cost-effective treatment option for medium- and long-term use.

Percutaneous Stenting of Incidental Unilateral Renal Artery Stenosis: Decision Analysis of Costs and Benefits

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 546-556 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Axelrod ◽  
A. Mark Fendrick ◽  
Ruth C. Carlos ◽  
Robert J. Lederman ◽  
James B. Froehlich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Renal Artery ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Renal Artery Stenosis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Artery Stenosis ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Refractory Hypertension

Purpose: To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of prophylactic percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with stent placement (PTA-S) in patients with incidentally discovered, asymptomatic renal artery stenosis (RAS) compared to delaying PTA-S until patients develop refractory hypertension or renal insufficiency (therapeutic PTA-S). Methods: The Markov decision analysis model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved for prophylactic PTA-S as compared to therapeutic PTA-S in a hypothetical cohort of patients with 50% unilateral atherosclerotic RAS followed from age 61 to death. Results: Prophylactic PTA-S compared to therapeutic PTA-S results in more QALYs/patient (10.9 versus 10.3) at higher lifetime costs ($23,664 versus $16,558). The incremental cost effectiveness of prophylactic PTA-S was estimated to be $12,466/QALY. Prophylactic stenting was not cost effective (>$50,000/QALY) if the modeled incidence of stent restenosis exceeded 15%/year and the incidence of progression in the contralateral renal artery was <2% of arteries/year. Conclusions: PTA-S of incidental, asymptomatic unilateral RAS may improve patients' quality of life at an acceptable incremental cost. However, this technology should be used hesitantly until a randomized comparison confirms its effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of treating patients with advanced progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with everolimus versus sunitinib in the United States.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 226-226
Author(s):  
Roman Casciano ◽  
Maruit Chulikavit ◽  
Allison Perrin ◽  
Zhimei Liu ◽  
Xufang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

226 Background: Everolimus and sunitinib were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). This analysis examines the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of advanced, progressive pNET patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained when treating with everolimus as compared to sunitinib. Absent head-to-head trials, efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the two agents using the respective phase 3 trial data. Disease or health states considered in the model included: stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Costs of anti-tumor therapies, symptomatic care drugs, and post-progression therapy were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs including physician visits, tests, infusions, hospitalizations, adverse event costs, and end-of-life care costs were obtained from literature and/or standard sources such as the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medicare reimbursement rates. Utility inputs were based on a UK time trade-off study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model’s robustness. Results: In the base case analysis, the estimated gain of everolimus over sunitinib was 0.448 LYs (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained), which fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology drugs. The analysis was sensitive to the uncertainty of the sunitinib trial results; however, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the results were consistent across simulations. Conclusions: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies rather than a single head-to-head trial, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced pNET.

scholarly journals A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Neoadjuvant Therapy for Neuroendocrine Cervical Tumors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingtao Lin ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Haixin He ◽  
Jian Chen
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Neoadjuvant Therapy ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Cervical Tumors

Abstract Purpose. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in combination with surgery and adjuvant therapy compared with either surgery alone or surgery plus adjuvant therapy for the treatment of neuroendocrine cervical tumors (NETs). Materials and methods. A single-institution retrospective analysis of 107 patients with NETs was performed based on the new International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO 2018) staging system. We divided the patients who underwent radical surgery into two groups: neoadjuvant therapy (NACT) and non-neoadjuvant therapy (non-NACT) groups. We performed subgroup analysis of overall survival and cost-effectiveness by dividing the patients with stage I-IV disease into four subgroups. An assessment was constructed to reflect the costs and effectiveness of the treatment from the perspectives of both clinical practice and health economics.Results. The NACT group had -0.45 life-years (LYs) at an incremental cost of $15197.58, compared with the non-NACT group, which means that it is not cost-effective. However, subgroup analysis of patients with stage II disease showed that the NACT group had significantly better overall survival time than the non-NACT group (median overall survival had not been reached versus 29.23 months, p＜0.001). The NACT group had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $5921.43/LY compared with the non-NACT group for stage II disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold reached $31118.29/LY, which is nearly three times China's per capita GDP 2020, the probability of NACT being cost-effective was 97% versus non-NACT group in the treatment of stage II neuroendocrine tumors of the uterine cervix. Conclusion. NACT is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with non-NACT in the treatment of NETs, but may be a cost-effective treatment option for stage II NETs.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib in treatment naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21102-e21102
Author(s):  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

e21102 Background: Crizotinib was approved by the FDA (2011) as the first ALK inhibitor for ALK+ NSCLC as the first line drug. This was followed by the approval as second line treatment of ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015) and brigatinib (2017); and, following more data, now also as first line therapies in ALK+ NSCLC. With varying costs and clinical benefits for progression free survival (PFS), cost effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted. Methods: A 3 state Markov model was built including progression free, progression and death. PFS and overall survival curves were digitized and exponential functions were fit the curves for extrapolation beyond trial follow up. A lifetime horizon, US payer perspective, and a discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were based on Redbook Wholesale Acquisition Cost while costs of adverse events, monitoring, disease progression were from literatures (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported at > 5% were included. Crizotinib was used as reference treatment. PFS life years (PFSLY), quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY), incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug in the following estimations. For alectinib, at incremental cost of $7,789 (PSA $7,719), the incremental PFSLY of 1.10 (1.10) and PFSQALY 1.07 (1.07) yielded an ICER of $7,109 ($7,030) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $7,278 ($7.197) / PFSQALYG. For ceritinib, at incremental cost of $88,688 ($88,450), the incremental PFSLY of 1.02 (1.02) and PFSQALY of 1.01 (1.01) resulted in an ICER of $86,970 ($86,729) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $87,472 / PFSQALYG. For brigatinib, at incremental cost of $84,680 ($83,986), the incremental PFSLY of 1.01 (1.01) and PFSQALY of 1.02 yielded an ICER of $83,774 ($83,073) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $82,666 ($81,976) / PFSQALYG. Conclusions: Ceritinib had the highest lifetime cost and comparable PFSLY and PFSQALY to brigatinib. However, alectinib reported the highest PFSLY and PFSQALY gained while having lower costs than ceritinib and brigatinib, therefore being the most cost-effective treatment for naïve ALK+ NSCLC.[Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of using intermittent pneumatic compression to manage hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers in the UK

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 544-552
Author(s):  
Julian F Guest ◽  
Karen Staines ◽  
Nina Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Intermittent Pneumatic Compression ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Leg Ulcers ◽  
Venous Leg Ulcers ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Objective: To estimate whether thigh-administered intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) could potentially afford the UK's National Health Service (NHS) a cost-effective intervention for the management of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs). Method: A Markov model was constructed depicting the management of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care or standard care alone over a period of 24 weeks. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of the two interventions in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2019/20 prices. Results: Treatment of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care instead of standard care alone is expected to increase the probability of healing by 58% (from 0.24 to 0.38) at 24 weeks and increase health-related quality of life over 24 weeks from 0.32 to 0.34 QALYs per patient. Additionally, the cost of treating with IPC plus standard care (£3,020 per patient) instead of standard care alone (£3,037 per patient) has the potential to be cost-neutral if use of this device is stopped after 6 weeks in non-improving wounds. Sensitivity analysis showed that the relative cost-effectiveness of IPC plus standard care remains <£20,000 per QALY with plausible variations in costs and effectiveness. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the addition of IPC to standard care potentially affords a cost-effective treatment to the NHS for managing hard-to-heal VLUs. However, a controlled study is required to validate the outcomes of this analysis.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

Abstract 6234: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Demonstrates Superiority of Screening Young Athletes with 12-Lead Electrocardiogram versus History and Physical in Preventing Sudden Cardiac Death

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T Wheeler ◽  
Paul A Heidenreich ◽  
Victor F Froelicher ◽  
Mark A Hlatky ◽  
Euan A Ashley
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Sudden Cardiac Death ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Young Athletes ◽  
Life Years

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a rare but frightening event among young athletes. The Italian experience demonstrates a reduction in athlete SCD by screening with history, physical, and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). American guideline statements have not recommended ECG for screening athletes due to perceptions of high cost and unclear effectiveness. We sought to model the cost-effectiveness (CE) of history and physical (H&P), ECG plus H&P, and no screening in US high school and college competitive athletes. A decision analysis model was used. Risks, prevalence, and test characteristics were derived from the medical literature. Costs were derived from publicly available datasets. Markov processes were used to simulate the natural histories of screened athletes. One-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation of all variables in the estimated ranges were performed. A societal perspective was used. Screening with an ECG plus H&P has lower overall costs and better outcomes than use of H&P alone. Compared with no screening, H&P saves 0.57 life years (LY) per 1000 athletes screened at an incremental cost of $111 per athlete, yielding a CE ratio of $195,600 per LY saved (simulation based 95% CI $116,000–514,000). ECG plus H&P when compared to no screening saves 2.7 LY per 1000 athletes at an incremental cost of $199 per athlete, for a CE ratio of $74,100 per LY saved (95% CI $46,000–158,000). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that ECG plus H&P is the preferred strategy over H&P in terms of cost-effectiveness in 99.5% of simulations. ECG plus H&P is cost-effective below a threshold value of $100,000 per LY saved in 89% of simulations, while H&P is cost-effective in 1% of simulations. If the reduction in SCD risk per screening-identified, at-risk athlete is below 33%, or if more than 12% of screens are false positive, screening with ECG plus H&P is no longer cost effective. ECG plus H&P is superior to H&P for screening young athletes in our cost-effectiveness model. The incremental cost of adding an ECG, including screening, secondary testing, and subsequent treatment is under $100 per athlete screened. These data should inform the ongoing debate concerning pre-participation screening of US student-athletes.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of ivermectin vs. albendazole in the presumptive treatment of strongyloidiasis in immigrants to the United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
pp. 1055-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. MUENNIG ◽  
D. PALLIN ◽  
C. CHALLAH ◽  
K. KHAN
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Strongyloides Stercoralis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Presumptive Treatment ◽  
The Cost

The presumptive treatment of parasitosis among immigrants with albendazole has been shown to save both money and lives, primarily via a reduction in the burden of Strongyloides stercoralis. Ivermectin is more effective than albendazole, but is also more expensive. This coupled with confusion surrounding the cost-effectiveness of guiding therapy based on eosinophil counts has led to disparate practices. We used the newly arrived year 2000 immigrant population as a hypothetical cohort in a decision analysis model to examine the cost-effectiveness of various interventions to reduce parasitosis among immigrants. When the prevalence of S. stercoralis is greater than 2%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of all presumptive treatment strategies were similar. Ivermectin is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1700 per QALY gained for treatment with 12 mg ivermectin relative to 5 days of albendazole when the prevalence is 10%. Any presumptive treatment strategy is cost-effective when compared with most common medical interventions.

scholarly journals Surgery is cost-effective treatment for young patients with vestibular schwannomas: decision tree modeling of surgery, radiation, and observation

2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. E8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinna C. Zygourakis ◽  
Taemin Oh ◽  
Matthew Z. Sun ◽  
Igor Barani ◽  
James G. Kahn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Tree ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Vestibular Schwannomas ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Total Hospital ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Object Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are managed in 3 ways: observation (“wait and scan”); Gamma Knife surgery (GKS); or microsurgery. Whereas there is considerable literature regarding which management approach is superior, there are only a few studies addressing the cost of treating VSs, and there are no cost-utility analyses in the US to date. Methods In this study, the authors used the University of California at San Francisco medical record and hospital accounting databases to determine total hospital charges and costs for 33 patients who underwent open surgery, 42 patients who had GKS, and 12 patients who were observed between 2010 and 2013. The authors then performed decision-tree analysis to determine which treatment paradigm produces the highest quality-adjusted life years and to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, depending on the patient's age at VS diagnosis. Results The average total hospital cost over a 3-year period for surgically treated patients was $80,074 (± $49,678) versus $9737 (± $5522) for patients receiving radiosurgery and $1746 (± $2792) for patients who were observed. When modeling the most debilitating symptoms and worst outcomes of VSs (vertigo and death) at different ages at diagnosis, radiation is dominant to observation at all ages up to 70 years. Surgery is cost-effective when compared with radiation (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio < $150,000) at younger ages at diagnosis (< 45 years old). Conclusions In this model, surgery is a cost-effective alternative to radiation when VS is diagnosed in patients at < 45 years. For patients ≥ 45 years, radiation is the most cost-effective treatment option.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document