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.

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.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (20) ◽  
pp. e2339-e2348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Sánchez Fernández ◽  
Marina Gaínza-Lein ◽  
Nathan Lamb ◽  
Tobias Loddenkemper
Keyword(s):  
Status Epilepticus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiepileptic Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Convulsive Status Epilepticus ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveCompare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).MethodsDecision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.ResultsWe included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.ConclusionVPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

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.

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 Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Okoboi ◽  
Barbara Castelnuovo ◽  
Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden ◽  
Oucul Lazarus ◽  
Lung Vu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Hiv Infections ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: From June to August 2018, we conducted a pilot study of secondary MSM peer HIVST kit distribution at The AIDS Support Organization at Entebbe and Masaka. We used an ingredients approach to estimate the cost of MSM peer HIVST kit distribution relative to standard-of-care (SOC) hotspot testing using programme expenditure data reported in US dollars. The provider perspective was used to estimate incremental cost-effective ratios per HIV infection averted using the difference in HIV annual transmission rates between MSM with HIV who knew their status and were not virologically suppressed and MSM with HIV who did not know their status.Results: We enrolled 297 participants of whom 150 received MSM peer HIVST kit distribution (intervention group) and 147 received TASO standard of care HIV testing (control group). Provider cost for the intervention was $2,276 compared with $1,827 for SOC during the 3-month study period. Overall, the intervention resulted in higher HIV positivity yield (4.9 vs. 1.4%) and averted more HIV infections per quarter (0.364 vs. 0.104) compared with SOC. The cost per person tested was higher for the intervention compared to SOC ($15.90 vs. $12.40). Importantly, the cost per new HIV diagnosis ($325 vs. $914) and cost per transmission averted ($6,253 vs. $ 17,567) were lower for the intervention approach relative to SOC. The incremental cost per HIV transmission averted by the self-testing program was $1,727. The incremental cost to providers per additional HIV-positive person identified by the intervention was $147.30.Conclusion: The intervention strategy was cost-effective, and identified more undiagnosed HIV infections than SOC hotspot testing at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US $2,129. Secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peers should further be evaluated with longer duration aimed at diagnosing 95% of all persons with HIV by 2030; the first UNAIDS 95-95-95 target.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Bariatric Surgery for Morbidly Obese with Diabetes Patients in Thailand

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ithiphon Viratanapanu ◽  
Chavalit Romyen ◽  
Komol Chaivanijchaya ◽  
Sikarin Sornphiphatphong ◽  
Worawit Kattipatanapong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diabetes Control ◽  
Effectiveness Evaluation ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Dm Type 2

Background. Bariatric surgery is a choice for treatment in morbidly obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM type 2) who have inadequate diabetes control with only medical treatment. However, bariatric surgery requires highly sophisticated equipment, and thus the cost of surgery seems to be very high following the procedure compared with the cost of conventional diabetes care. This raises the question of whether bariatric surgery is cost-effective for morbidly obese people with diabetes in Thailand. Objective. To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation of bariatric surgery compared with ordinary treatment for diabetes control in morbidly obese DM type 2 patients in Thailand. Methods. Cost-effectiveness study was conducted, using a combination of decision tree and Markov model in analysis. Treatment outcomes and healthcare costs were incurred by data from literature review and retrospective cohort in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from September 2009 to March 2016 for the conventional and bariatric surgery group, respectively. One-way sensitivity was used for analysis of the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Monetary benefits at a threshold of 150,000 to 200,000 Thai baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on the Thailand gross domestic products (GDP) value was regarded as cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery. Results. Bariatric surgery significantly improves the clinical outcome including long-term diabetes remission rate, hemoglobin A1C, and body mass index (BMI). The incremental cost per QALY of bariatric surgery compared with the medication control is 26,907.76 THB/QALY which can consider bariatric surgery as a cost-effective option. Conclusions. Use of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese with DM type 2 patients is a cost-effective strategy in Thailand’s context.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Epilepsy Surgery and Surgical Evaluation in the United States

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehryar R Sheikh ◽  
Michael P Steinmetz ◽  
Michael W Kattan ◽  
Mendel Singer ◽  
Belinda Udeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Surgical Evaluation ◽  
The Cost

Abstract INTRODUCTION Surgery is an effective treatment for many pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients, but incurs considerable cost. It is unknown whether surgery and surgical evaluation are cost-effective strategies in the United States. We aim to evaluate whether 1) surgery is cost-effective for patients who have been deemed surgical candidates when compared to continued medical management, 2) surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients who have drug-resistant temporal epilepsy and may or may not ultimately be deemed surgical candidates METHODS We use a Monte Carlo simulation method to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between two health states (‘seizure free’ and ‘having seizures’) as part of a Markov process, based on literature estimates. We adopt both healthcare and societal perspectives, including direct healthcare costs and indirect costs such as lost earnings by patients and care providers. We estimate variability of model predictions using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 1) Epilepsy surgery is cost effective in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost saving and more effective than medical management in the long run, with 95% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations favoring surgery. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost effective within 3 yr. At 5 yr, surgery has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,600, which is significantly below the societal willingness-to-pay (∼ $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) and comparable to hip/knee arthroplasty. 2) Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in pharmacoresistant patients even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is low (5%-10%). Even if the probability of surgical eligibility is only 10%, surgical referral has an ICER of $96,000/QALY, which is below societal willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION Epilepsy surgery and surgical evaluation are both cost-effective strategies in the United States. Pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

scholarly journals Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness of Fortified Blended Food Aid Products

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Regier ◽  
Brian L. Lindshield ◽  
Nina K. Lilja
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transportation Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Nutrient Value ◽  
Nutritional Data ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Blended Food

Background: Sorghum-Soy Blend (SSB) and Sorghum-Cowpea Blend (SCB) fortified blended food aid porridge products were developed as alternatives to Corn-Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) and Super Cereal Plus (SC+), the most widely used fortified blended food aid products. However, the cost and nutrient cost-effectiveness of these products procured from different geographical areas have not been determined. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the nutrient cost-effectiveness of SSB and SCB compared to existing fortified blended foods. Methods: Nutritional data as well as ingredient, processing, and transportation cost for SSB, SCB, and existing fortified blended foods were compiled. Using the omega value, the ratio of the fortified blended food’s Nutrient Value Score to the total cost of the fortified blended food divided by an identical ratio of a different fortified blended food or the same fortified blended food produced in a different country and the nutrient cost-effectiveness of each of the fortified blended foods procured in the United States and several African countries were determined. Results: Both CSB+ and SC+ are less expensive than SSB and SCB, but they also have lower Nutrient Value Scores of 7.7 and 8.6, respectively. However, the omega values of CSB+ and SC+ are all above 1 when compared to SSB and SCB, suggesting that the existing fortified blended foods are more nutrient cost-effective. Conclusions: Comparing the nutrient cost-effectiveness of various food aid products could provide valuable information to food aid agencies prior to making procurement decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document