scholarly journals 175 Open vs MIS Lumbar Surgery: A Systematic Review of Cost Effectiveness

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
U Oduoza ◽  
K Eseonu ◽  
M Monem ◽  
M Tahir
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Fusion Surgery ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Costing Analysis

Abstract Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has benefits over open surgery for lumbar decompression and/or fusion but there is no established consensus regarding its cost effectiveness. Method A systematic electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) and manual search from the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Two authors reviewed abstracts against exclusion criteria. Studies including adult populations undergoing surgery for degenerative changes (lumbar stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, spondylolisthesis) of the lumbar spine, reporting outcomes of costing analysis, CEA or Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Results Two of the 5 studies comparing open vs single level MIS fusion surgery (TLIF) reported a statistically significant reduction in direct cost for MIS compared to open surgery. The mean non-inflation adjusted cost was $31,626, and $34757 for the MIS and open TLIF groups respectively. One paper comparing open versus MIS two level TLIF reported a statistically significant difference in costing but not in QALYs. Conclusions Generally, studies reported a reduced cost associated with MIS versus open surgery. One study reported a statistically significant change in QALY. The majority had a high risk of bias. This review was unable to recommend MIS over open surgery from a cost effectiveness perspective.

scholarly journals Addition of Flucytosine to Fluconazole for the Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis in Africa: A Multicountry Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinevimbo Shiri ◽  
Angela Loyse ◽  
Lawrence Mwenge ◽  
Tao Chen ◽  
Shabir Lakhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cryptococcal Meningitis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Costing Analysis ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background Mortality from cryptococcal meningitis remains very high in Africa. In the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa (ACTA) trial, 2 weeks of fluconazole (FLU) plus flucytosine (5FC) was as effective and less costly than 2 weeks of amphotericin-based regimens. However, many African settings treat with FLU monotherapy, and the cost-effectiveness of adding 5FC to FLU is uncertain. Methods The effectiveness and costs of FLU+5FC were taken from ACTA, which included a costing analysis at the Zambian site. The effectiveness of FLU was derived from cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients, managed in respects other than drug therapy, as were participants in ACTA. FLU costs were derived from costs of FLU+5FC in ACTA, by subtracting 5FC drug and monitoring costs. The cost-effectiveness of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed uncertainties and a bivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the impact of varying mortality and 5FC drug costs on the ICER. Results The mean costs per patient were US $847 (95% confidence interval [CI] $776–927) for FLU+5FC, and US $628 (95% CI $557–709) for FLU. The 10-week mortality rate was 35.1% (95% CI 28.9–41.7%) with FLU+5FC and 53.8% (95% CI 43.1–64.1%) with FLU. At the current 5FC price of US $1.30 per 500 mg tablet, the ICER of 5FC+FLU versus FLU alone was US $65 (95% CI $28–208) per life-year saved. Reducing the 5FC cost to between US $0.80 and US $0.40 per 500 mg resulted in an ICER between US $44 and US $28 per life-year saved. Conclusions The addition of 5FC to FLU is cost-effective for cryptococcal meningitis treatment in Africa and, if made available widely, could substantially reduce mortality rates among human immunodeficiency virus–infected persons in Africa.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (22) ◽  
pp. 3837-3840
Author(s):  
Faridah Baroroh ◽  
Andriana Sari ◽  
Noviana Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hypertension Therapy ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

scholarly journals ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF CHELATION REGIMENS FOR β--THALASSEMIA MAJOR: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e2019036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jialian Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Thalassemia Major ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
The Cost

Background:Deferoxamine (DFO) or Deferiprone (DFP) or Deferasirox (DFX) monotherapy and DFO and DFP combination therapy were four commonly implemented now chelation regimens for the iron overloaded of β-thalassemia major. This systematic review aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of four chelation regimens and provide evidence for the rational use of chelation regimens for β-thalassemia major therapy in clinic.Methods:A systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane library), HTAD (Cochrane library), NHS EED (Cochrane library), CBM, CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang was conducted in April 2018. In addition, a manual search was performed. Two researchers, working independently, selected the papers, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of the included papers. Each included paper was evaluated using a checklist developed by Drummond et al. Results:The initial number of records was 968, and eight papers met the final eligibility criteria. All the included eight papers were cost-utility analyses. And the methodological quality of these papers was good. Nineteen studies were included in eight papers. Nine studies of DFX versus DFO had contradictory results. Out of the nineteen studies, three studies of DFX versus DFP established that using DFP was cost-effective. Three studies of DFP versus DFO established that using DFP was cost-effective. One study of DFP and DFO combination therapy versus DFO found that using DFO was cost-effective. One study of DFP and DFO combination therapy versus DFP found that using DFP was cost-effective. And there were two studies of DFP and DFO combination therapy versus DFX, but we cannot be sure which one of two chelation regimens was cost-effective. Conclusion:In brief, DFP is the best choice, followed by DFO or DFX, when an iron chelator is to be used alone for β-thalassemia major therapy. All studies that compared DFO and DFP combination therapy with DFO (or DFP or DFX) monotherapy established that the combination therapy with DFO and DFP was not cost-effective. However, due to the low number of related studies, more extensive, high-quality research is required for further analysis and confirmation of our findings. Moreover, the cost effectiveness is not an absolute issue when in different countries(regions) the results are opposite for other countries(regions). The specific region had a substantial influence on the economy of drugs. Key words: β-thalassemia major, Deferoxamine, Deferiprone, Deferasirox, cost-effectiveness, systematic review

Cost-effectiveness and satisfaction following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (7) ◽  
pp. 860-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Nicholson ◽  
H. K. C. Searle ◽  
D. MacDonald ◽  
J. McBirnie
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
One Year ◽  
Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cuff Repair

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of age on the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Patients and Methods A total of 112 patients were prospectively monitored for two years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH), the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Complications and use of healthcare resources were recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to express the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Propensity score-matching was used to compare those aged below and above 65 years of age. Satisfaction was determined using the Net Promoter Score (NPS). Linear regression was used to identify variables that influenced the outcome at two years postoperatively. Results A total of 92 patients (82.1%) completed the follow-up. Their mean age was 59.5 years (sd 9.7, 41 to 78). There were significant improvements in the mean DASH (preoperative 47.6 vs one-year 15.3; p < 0.001) and OSS scores (26.5 vs 40.5; p < 0.001). Functional improvements were maintained with no significant change between one and two years postoperatively. The mean preoperative EQ-5D was 0.54 increasing to 0.81 at one year (p < 0.001) and maintained at 0.86, two years postoperatively. There was no significant difference between those aged below or above 65 years of age with regards to postoperative shoulder function or EQ-5D gains. Smoking was the only characteristic that significantly adversely influenced the EQ-5D at two years postoperatively (p = 0.005). A total of 87 were promoters and five were passive, giving a mean NPS of 95 (87/92). The total mean cost per patient was £3646.94 and the mean EQ-5D difference at one year was 0.2691, giving a mean ICER of £13 552.36/QALY. At two years, this decreased further to £5694.78/QALY. This was comparable for those aged below or above 65 years of age (£5209.91 vs £5525.67). Smokers had an ICER that was four times more expensive. Conclusion Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair results in excellent patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness, regardless of age. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:860–866.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Revision Digit Amputation Performed in the Emergency Department Versus the Operating Room

Hand ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Gil ◽  
Avi D. Goodman ◽  
Andrew P. Harris ◽  
Neill Y. Li ◽  
Arnold-Peter C. Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Initial Management ◽  
Fingertip Amputation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Initial Procedure ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of performing initial revision finger amputation in the emergency department (ED) versus in the operating room (OR) accounting for need for unplanned secondary revision in the OR. Methods: We retrospectively examined patients presenting to the ED with traumatic finger and thumb amputations from January 2010 to December 2015. Only those treated with primarily revision amputation were included. Following initial management, the need for unplanned reoperation was assessed and associated with setting of initial management. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the cost-effectiveness threshold for initial management in the ED versus the OR. Results: Five hundred thirty-seven patients had 677 fingertip amputations, of whom 91 digits were initially primarily revised in the OR, and 586 digits were primarily revised in the ED. Following initial revision, 91 digits required unplanned secondary revision. The unplanned secondary revision rates were similar between settings: 13.7% digits from the ED and 12.1% of digits from the OR ( P = .57). When accounting for direct costs, an incidence of unplanned revision above 77.0% after initial revision fingertip amputation in the ED would make initial revision fingertip amputation in the OR cost-effective. Therefore, based on the unplanned secondary revision rate, initial management in the ED is more cost-effective than in the OR. Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the incidence of unplanned/secondary revision of fingertip amputation rate after the initial procedure was performed in the ED versus the OR.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tears: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712098753
Author(s):  
Cammille C. Go ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
Jeffrey W. Chen ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
David R. Maldonado
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
The Cost

Background: Hip arthroscopy has frequently been shown to produce successful outcomes as a treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears. However, there is less literature on whether the favorable results of hip arthroscopy can justify the costs, especially when compared with a nonoperative treatment. Purpose: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy for treating FAI and labral tears. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched to identify articles that reported the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) generated by hip arthroscopy. The key terms used were “hip arthroscopy,” “cost,” “utility,” and “economic evaluation.” The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $50,000/QALY. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score were used to determine the quality of the studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172991). Results: Six studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy were identified, and 5 of these studies compared hip arthroscopy to a nonoperative comparator. These studies were found to have a mean QHES score of 85.2 and a mean cohort age that ranged from 33-37 years. From both a health care system perspective and a societal perspective, 4 studies reported that hip arthroscopy was more costly but resulted in far greater gains than did nonoperative treatment. The preferred treatment strategy was most sensitive to duration of benefit, preoperative osteoarthritis, cost of the arthroscopy, and the improvement in QALYs with hip arthroscopy. Conclusion: In the majority of the studies, hip arthroscopy had a higher initial cost but provided greater gain in QALYs than did a nonoperative treatment. In certain cases, hip arthroscopy can be cost-effective given a long enough duration of benefit and appropriate patient selection. However, there is further need for literature to analyze willingness-to-pay thresholds.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS IMPACTS CANCER CARE FUNDING DECISIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, EVIDENCE FROM 1998 TO 2008

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-486
Author(s):  
Zahra Ismail ◽  
Stuart J. Peacock ◽  
Laurel Kovacic ◽  
Jeffrey S. Hoch
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Nonparametric Tests ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Economic Evidence ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The Priorities and Evaluation Committee (PEC) funding recommendations for new cancer drugs in British Columbia, Canada have been based on both clinical and economic evidence. The British Columbia Ministry of Health makes funding decisions. We assessed the association between cost-effectiveness of cancer drugs considered from 1998 to 2008 and the subsequent funding decisions.Methods: All proposals submitted to the PEC between 1998 and 2008 were reviewed, and the association between cost-effectiveness and funding decisions was examined by (i) using logistic regression to test the hypothesis that interventions with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have a lower probability of receiving a positive funding decision and (ii) using parametric and nonparametric tests to determine if a statistically significant difference exists between the mean cost-effectiveness of funded versus not funded proposals. A sub-analysis was conducted to determine if the findings varied across different outcome measures.Results: Of the 149 proposals reviewed, 78 reported cost-effectiveness using various outcome measures. In the proposals that used life-years gained as the outcome (n = 22), a statistically significant difference of nearly $115,000 was observed between the mean ICERs for funded proposals ($42,006) and for unfunded proposals ($156,967). An odds ratio indicating higher ICERs have a lower probability of being funded was also found to be statistically significant (p < .05).Conclusions: Economic evidence appears to play a role in British Columbia cancer funding decisions from 1998 to 2008; other decision-making criteria may also have an important role in recommendations and subsequent funding decisions.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

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.

Economic evaluation of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous ketamine in the management of chronic cancer pain

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki McCaffrey ◽  
Thomas Flint ◽  
Billingsley Kaambwa ◽  
Belinda Fazekas ◽  
Debra Rowett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

Background: Treating chronic, uncontrolled, cancer pain with subcutaneous ketamine in patients unresponsive to opioids and co-analgesics remains controversial, especially in light of recent evidence demonstrating ketamine does not have net clinical benefit in this setting. Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous ketamine versus placebo in this patient population. Design and setting: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative’s randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ketamine was conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Mean costs and outcomes were estimated from participant-level data over 5 days including positive response, health-related quality of life (HrQOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal), ketamine costs, medication usage and in-patient stays. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in responder rates, but higher toxicity and worse HrQOL for ketamine participants (mean change −3.10 (standard error (SE) 1.76), ketamine n = 93; 4.53 (SE 1.38), placebo n = 92). Estimated total mean costs were AU$706 higher per ketamine participant (AU$6608) compared with placebo (AU$5902), attributable to the cost of higher in-patient costs as well as costs of ketamine administration. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for different medication use costing methods and removal of cost outliers. Conclusion: The findings suggest subcutaneous ketamine in conjunction with opioids and standard adjuvant therapy is neither an effective nor cost-effective treatment for refractory pain in advanced cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document