scholarly journals P493 Cost-effectiveness of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after hospitalization in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S477-S477
Author(s):  
K Lee ◽  
F Lim ◽  
J F Colombel ◽  
C Hur ◽  
A Faye
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, with increased risk during hospitalization. However, recent evidence suggests that this increased risk persists post-discharge. As such, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of post-discharge VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized patients with IBD. Methods A decision tree was used to compare inpatient prophylaxis alone versus 4 weeks of post-discharge VTE prophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over one year, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2020 $US), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one VTE and VTE death were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess uncertainty within the model. Results Four-week post-discharge prophylaxis with rivaroxaban resulted in 1.68 higher QALYs per 1000 persons and an incremental cost of $185,778 per QALY as compared to no post-discharge prophylaxis. The NNT to prevent a single VTE was 78 individuals, while the NNT to prevent a single VTE-related death was 3190 individuals. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that higher baseline VTE risk >4.5% or decreased cost of rivaroxaban ≤$280 can reduce the ICER to <$100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored post-discharge prophylaxis in 26.5% of iterations. Abbreviations: QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years), ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio), NNT (Number Needed to Treat), VTE (Venous Thromboembolism) Figure. Tornado diagram showing main drivers (variables and sensitivity ranges) of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). *Values represent threshold values that reduce the ICER to <$100,000/QALY. Abbreviations: VTE (Venous Thromboembolism), DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis), PE (Pulmonary Embolism), PTS (Post-Thrombotic Syndrome), WTP (Willingness To Pay), EV (Expected Value) Conclusion Four weeks of post-discharge VTE prophylaxis results in higher QALYs as compared to inpatient prophylaxis alone, and can prevent one post-discharge VTE among 78 patients with IBD. As such, post-discharge VTE prophylaxis in patients with IBD should be considered in a case-by-case scenario considering VTE risk profile, costs, and patient preference.

Cost-effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Hospitalization in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate E Lee ◽  
Francesca Lim ◽  
Jean-Frederic Colombel ◽  
Chin Hur ◽  
Adam S Faye
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Abstract Background Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a 2- to 3-fold greater risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than patients without IBD, with increased risk during hospitalization that persists postdischarge. We determined the cost-effectiveness of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis among hospitalized patients with IBD. Methods A decision tree compared inpatient prophylaxis alone vs 4 weeks of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis with 10 mg/day of rivaroxaban. Our primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and strategies were compared using a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY from a societal perspective. Costs (in 2020 $USD), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent 1 VTE and VTE death were calculated. Deterministic 1-way and probabilistic analyses assessed model uncertainty. Results Prophylaxis with rivaroxaban resulted in 1.68-higher QALYs per 1000 persons compared with no postdischarge prophylaxis at an incremental cost of $185,778 per QALY. The NNT to prevent a single VTE was 78, whereas the NNT to prevent a single VTE-related death was 3190. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that higher VTE risk >4.5% and decreased cost of rivaroxaban ≤$280 can reduce the ICER to <$100,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses favored prophylaxis in 28.9% of iterations. Conclusions Four weeks of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis results in higher QALYs compared with inpatient prophylaxis alone and prevents 1 postdischarge VTE among 78 patients with IBD. Although postdischarge VTE prophylaxis for all patients with IBD is not cost-effective, it should be considered in a case-by-case scenario, considering VTE risk profile, costs, and patient preference.

Abstract 16842: Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Eluting Envelopes for Prevention of Infections Associated With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronuk Modi ◽  
Peter Zimetbaum ◽  
Nicolas Isaza ◽  
Paola Calvachi ◽  
Inbar Raber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Electronic Devices ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Increased Risk

Introduction: Infections of cardiac implantable electronic devices result in substantial morbidity and healthcare costs. Using an antibiotic-eluting envelope (AEE) during implantation may reduce the incidence of device-related infection. We examined the cost-effectiveness of an AEE in patients receiving CRT-D devices. Methods: This analysis was conducted independent of the trial sponsor. We developed a state-transition Markov model to compare the use of an AEE with usual care during CRT-D initial implantation or reimplantation. Effectiveness of the AEE (unit cost $1000) was estimated from the Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial. Other inputs were derived from prior trials, registries, vital statistics, and nationally representative datasets. Long-term survival was projected using a non-parametric approach. The model reported incidence of infections, mortality, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and direct healthcare costs. Future costs and QALYs were discounted by 3% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AEE use from the US healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime analytic horizon. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Results: Use of an AEE at initial CRT-D implantation added 0.008 QALYs per patient at an incremental cost of $918 (ICER $118,000/QALY). Due to higher infection rates, the use of AEE in reimplantation procedures was more economically attractive (ICER $55,900/QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses showed an inverse relationship between ICER and rate of infection. The ICER was less than $100,000/QALY with infection rate greater than 2.42% in the first year after new CRT-D (Figure 1). Conclusions: At current prices, use of AEE is cost-effective for CRT-D reimplantation procedures but not for initial CRT-D implants. Cost-effectiveness of AEEs may be improved by restricting use to patients at increased risk of infection.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF IVABRADINE IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE IN IRAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 576-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeed Taheri ◽  
Elham Heidari ◽  
Mohammad Ali Aivazi ◽  
Mehran Shams-Beyranvand ◽  
Mehdi Varmaghani
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Baseline Heart Rate ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) in comparison with current SoC alone from the Iranian payer perspective.Methods:A cohort-based Markov model was developed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10-year time horizon in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The baseline transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA), mortality rate, and hospitalization rate were extracted from the literature. The effect of ivabradine on mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA improvement or worsening were retrieved from the SHIFT study. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the utility values derived from Iranian Heart Failure Quality of Life study. Direct medical costs were obtained from hospital records and national tariffs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to show the robustness of the model.Results:Ivabradine therapy was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of USD $5,437 (incremental cost of USD $2,207 and QALYs gained 0.41) versus SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ivabradine is expected to have a 60 percent chance of being cost-effective accepting a threshold of USD $6,550 per QALY. Furthermore, deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the model is sensitive to the ivabradine drug acquisition cost.Conclusions:The cost-effectiveness model suggested that the addition of ivabradine to SoC therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes along with increased costs. The analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost in eligible heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and a baseline heart rate ≥ 75 beats per minute (bpm).

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of abiraterone in the treatment of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who previously received docetaxel.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15107-e15107
Author(s):  
Akhil Chopra ◽  
Stefan Gluck ◽  
Alberto J. Montero ◽  
Kiran Kumar Venkata Raja Avancha ◽  
Gilberto Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us

e15107 Background: Treatment with abiraterone improves overall survival (OS), time to prostate-specific antigen progression and radiologic progression-free survival when added to prednisone and best supportive care in patients with advanced castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who previously received docetaxel. Little is known about its cost-effectiveness in the United States. Methods: In order to raise awareness of pharmacoeconomics concepts and inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone in the treatment of advanced CRPC patients, from a payer perspective. We created a decision-analytical model using clinical data from the pivotal phase III trial: COU-AA-301. Health utilities were derived from the available literature. Costs for drug acquisition, physician visits and laboratory tests were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2011 US dollars. Life-years saved (LY), Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were calculated using updated survival data presented at the 2011 ASCO meeting. Other main scenarios used the original median survival data published in the New England Journal of Medicine article and adjusted median OS to represent an overall survival hazard ratio of .66. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the confidence intervals for median OS in the pivotal study as well as by halving or doubling all other model inputs. No discounting was used due to the short time-horizon. Results: Abiraterone added 0.38 LY and 0.30 QALY with an incremental cost of $39,320 and therefore a cost of $102,600/LY and an ICER of $129,000/QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, median OS, and health utility values. The results of the model were robust in different scenarios and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Using commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, such as those suggested by the World Health Organization, treatment of patients with advanced CRPC patients with abiraterone is likely to be cost-effective in the US.

CyberKnife for prostate cancer: Is it cost-effective?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Parthan ◽  
N. Pruttivarasin ◽  
D. Taylor ◽  
D. Davies ◽  
G. Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Lifetime Costs

87 Background: The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (CK) compared to surgery and radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) from a third-party and societal perspective. Methods: For patients > 65 yrs with localized PC, a Markov model compared treatment with CK, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), surgery or proton therapy (PT). Following treatment, patients were at risk of long-term toxicity: genitourinary (GU); gastrointestinal (GI); and sexual dysfunction (SD). Long-term toxicity was defined as adverse events >grade 2 on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale occurring at least 12 months following treatment. Markov states included all possible combinations of GI, GU, and SD long-term toxicities, no toxicity, and death. During each year patients remained in the same Markov state or died. Costs and utilities were assigned using published sources. Toxicity probabilities were derived using meta-analytical techniques to pool results from multiple studies. It was assumed that long-term disease control would not differ across treatments. The model projected expected lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness of CK vs comparators as cost per QALY gained. Costs from societal perspective included lost productivity. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Surgery was the least expensive treatment option followed by CK. CK patients had higher expected QALYs (8.11) than other treatment options (7.72- 8.06). From a payer perspective, total lifetime costs were $25,904, $22,295, $38,915, and $58,100 for CK, surgery, IMRT and PT, respectively. Incremental cost per QALY gained for CK versus Surgery was $9,200/QALY. Compared to IMRT and PT, CK was less costly and resulted in higher QALYs (dominance). At a threshold of $50,000/QALY, CK was cost effective in 86%, 79%, and 91% of simulations compared to surgery, IMRT, and PT, respectively. From a societal perspective, CK costs $4,200/QALY compared to surgery and remained dominant vs IMRT and PT. Results were most sensitive to costs of surgery and CK. Conclusions: Initial CK costs are higher than surgery, but CK patients have better quality of life. CK patients have lower lifetime costs and higher QALYs than IMRT and PT patients. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolos Tsiachristas ◽  
Matthew Gittins ◽  
Henry Kitchener ◽  
Alastair Gray
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cervical Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Nurse Navigator ◽  
Lifetime Costs ◽  
Intervention Costs

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC trial). Methods We performed an economic analysis alongside the STRATEGIC trial, comparing each of seven novel interventions for improving cervical screening uptake with control general practices in Greater Manchester and Grampian (United Kingdom). A template was developed to measure the intervention costs. Trial estimates of screening uptake were combined with data from the literature to estimate healthcare costs of each intervention. The added lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of attending cervical screening were estimated by a systematic literature review, with relevant results pooled and weighted by study quality. Trial results and estimated lifetime costs and benefits of screening were then combined in a decision analytic model, giving an incremental cost per QALY gained for each intervention. Uncertainty was addressed in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. Results Intervention costs per screening round per woman attending varied from about £1.20 (2014 UK) for the nurse navigator intervention to £62 for the unrequested HPV self-sampler kit. The meta-analysis revealed a lifetime discounted benefit from screening of 0.043 QALYs per woman attending, at an additional lifetime discounted cost of £234. The incremental cost per QALY gained in all interventions was below £13,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that only unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments have a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions Unrequested self-sampling and timed appointments are likely to be cost-effective interventions. Further research is required on the duration of effects and on implementing combinations of interventions.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for American tegumentary leishmaniasis in Argentina

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 2459-2472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Wenceslao Orellano ◽  
Nestor Vazquez ◽  
Oscar Daniel Salomon
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Tegumentary Leishmaniasis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of reducing tegumentary leishmaniasis transmission using insecticide-impregnated clothing and curtains, and implementing training programs for early diagnosis. A societal perspective was adopted, with outcomes assessed in terms of costs per disability adjusted life years (DALY). Simulation was structured as a Markov model and costs were expressed in American dollars (US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each strategy was calculated. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for early diagnosis strategy was estimated at US$ 156.46 per DALY averted, while that of prevention of transmission with insecticide-impregnated curtains and clothing was US$ 13,155.52 per DALY averted. Both strategies were more sensitive to the natural incidence of leishmaniasis, to the effectiveness of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis treatment and to the cost of each strategy. Prevention of vectorial transmission and early diagnosis have proved to be cost-effective measures.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from a Randomized Controlled Trial of Tailored Exercise Prescription for Women with Breast Cancer with 8-Year Follow-Up

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8608
Author(s):  
Louisa G. Gordon ◽  
Elizabeth G. Eakin ◽  
Rosalind R. Spence ◽  
Christopher Pyke ◽  
John Bashford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Care Groups ◽  
Life Years

Studies show conflicting results on whether exercise interventions to improve outcomes for women with breast cancer are cost-effective. We modelled the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Exercise for Health intervention compared with usual care. A lifetime Markov cohort model for women with early breast cancer was constructed taking a societal perspective. Data were obtained from trial, epidemiological, quality of life, and healthcare cost reports. Outcomes were calculated from 5000 Monte Carlo simulations, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Over the cohort’s remaining life, the incremental cost for the exercise versus usual care groups were $7409 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.35 resulting in an incremental cost per QALY ratio of AU$21,247 (95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): Dominant, AU$31,398). The likelihood that the exercise intervention was cost-effective at acceptable levels was 93.0%. The incremental cost per life year gained was AU$8894 (95% UI Dominant, AU$11,769) with a 99.4% probability of being cost effective. Findings were most sensitive to the probability of recurrence in the exercise and usual care groups, followed by the costs of out-of-pocket expenses and the model starting age. This exercise intervention for women after early-stage breast cancer is cost-effective and would be a sound investment of healthcare resources.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism in Canada

2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (10) ◽  
pp. 760-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Diamantopoulos ◽  
Michael Lees ◽  
Philip Wells ◽  
Fiona Forster ◽  
Jaithri Ananthapavan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lower Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

SummaryThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban vs. enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. A model was developed that included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with one-year cycles). Transition probabilities were derived from phase III clinical trials comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin and published literature. Costs were derived from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative and publicly available sources. Utilities were derived from published literature. The model reported VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs over a five-year horizon. Costs are reported in 2007 Canadian Dollars (C$). When rivaroxaban and enoxaparin are compared in patients undergoing THR, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin. That is, rivaroxaban is associated with improved health outcomes as measured by increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.0006) and fewer symptomatic VTE events (0.0061), and also with lower cost (savings of C$300) per patient. Similarly, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin in patients undergoing TKR, achieving a gain of 0.0018 QALYs, a reduction of 0.0192 symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and savings of C$129 per patient. Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Over a five-year horizon, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more quality-of-life benefit at a lower cost.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document