The cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in different age cohorts of inhabitants in Denmark aged 65 years and above: a Markov modelled analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucca Katrine Sciera ◽  
Lars Frost ◽  
Lars Dybro ◽  
Peter Bo Poulsen
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Population Data ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Age Cohorts ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark compared to a no-screening alternative following current Danish practice. Methods and results A decision tree and a Markov model were designed to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a hypothetical cohort of citizens aged ≥65 years equivalent to the Danish population (1 M citizens) over the course of 19 years, using a healthcare and societal perspective. Share of detected AF patients following opportunistic screening was retrieved from a recent Danish screening study, whereas the risk stroke and bleedings in AF patients were based on population data from national registries and their associated costs was obtained from published national registry studies. The present study showed that one-time opportunistic screening for AF was more costly, but also more effective compared to a no-screening alternative. The analysis predicts that one-time opportunistic screening of all Danes aged ≥65 years potentially can identify an additional 10 300 AF patients and prevent 856 strokes in the period considered. The incremental cost of such a screening programme is €56.4 M, with a total gain of 6000 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9400 per QALY gained. Conclusion Opportunistic screening in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark is cost-effective compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000. The study and its findings support a potential implementation of opportunistic screening for AF at the general practitioner level in Denmark.

scholarly journals Cost‐effectiveness analysis of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongtao Wei ◽  
Can Cui ◽  
Xiangli Cui ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
Dandan Li
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods The Markov model was constructed to compare patients’ quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3–6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study. Results The total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110 mg bid, and dabigatran 150 mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least. Conclusions In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban and Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongtao Wei ◽  
Can Cui ◽  
Xiangli Cui ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
Dandan Li
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: the Markov model was constructed to compare the quality of life years of patients with dabigatran 110 and 150mg, twice a day, rivaroxaban 20mg, once a day, warfarin 3-6mg, once a day drug cost, and the cost of examination after taking the drug and the incremental cost of other treatments. Results: the total cost of warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran for 110mg bid and 150mg bid was 37806.08 yuan, 210977.4 yuan, 167906.1 yuan and 244050.1 yuan, respectively. The QALYs available were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that rivaroxaban compared with warfarin The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 39446.77 yuan / QALY, which is the advantage scheme and warfarin is the expansion disadvantage scheme. Conclusion: In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban and Warfarin in the prevention of Stroke in patients with Atrial Fibrillation in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Hongtao ◽  
Can Cui ◽  
Xiangli Cui ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
Dandan Li
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods: The Markov model was constructed to compare patients’ quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3-6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study.Results: The total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110mg bid, and dabigatran 150mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least. Conclusion: In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Hongtao ◽  
Can Cui ◽  
Xiangli Cui ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
Dandan Li
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Economic Point ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new anticoagulants and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods: The Markov model was constructed to compare patients’ quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using drug cost, the cost of the examination after taking a drug, and the incremental cost of other treatments. Both dabigatran (110 and 150 mg, twice a day) and rivaroxaban (20 mg, once a day) were compared with warfarin (3-6 mg, once a day). Willingness to pay, three times the 2018 China GDP per capita (9481.88 $), was the cost-effect threshold in our study.Results: The total cost were was 5317.31$, 29673.33$, 23615.49$, and 34324.91$ for warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran 110mg bid, and dabigatran 150mg bid, respectively. The QALYs for each of the four interventions were 11.07 years, 15.46 years, 12.4 years, and 15 years, respectively. The cost-effectiveness analysis of the three new oral anticoagulants and warfarin showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 5548.07$/QALY when rivaroxaban was compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective choice and warfarin was the least.Conclusion: In Chinese patients with AF, although warfarin is cheaper, rivaroxaban has a better cost-effectiveness advantage from an economic point of view.

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).

scholarly journals Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth F P Peterse ◽  
Reinier G S Meester ◽  
Lucie de Jonge ◽  
Amir-Houshang Omidvari ◽  
Fernando Alarid-Escudero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Computed Tomographic Colonography ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Stool Dna ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Methods The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. Results Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusions This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

scholarly journals Incremental cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery: observed quality-adjusted life years with surgery compared with predicted quality-adjusted life years without surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. E3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian McCarthy ◽  
Michael O'Brien ◽  
Christopher Ames ◽  
Chessie Robinson ◽  
Thomas Errico ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Nonsurgical Patients ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Object Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is critical to the efficient allocation of health care resources; however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has eluded the literature, due in part to inherent empirical difficulties when comparing surgical and nonsurgical patients. Using observed preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients who later underwent surgery, this study builds a statistical model to predict hypothetical quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) without surgical treatment. The analysis compares predicted QALYs to observed postoperative QALYs and forms the resulting ICER. Methods This was a single-center (Baylor Scoliosis Center) retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for ASD. Total costs (expressed in 2010 dollars) incurred by the hospital for each episode of surgical care were collected from administrative data and QALYs were calculated from the 6-dimensional Short-Form Health Survey, each discounted at 3.5% per year. Regression analysis was used to predict hypothetical QALYs without surgery based on preoperative longitudinal data for 124 crossover surgical patients with similar diagnoses, baseline HRQOL, age, and sex compared with the surgical cohort. Results were projected through 10-year follow-up, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was estimated using nonparametric bootstrap methods. Results Three-year follow-up was available for 120 (66%) of 181 eligible patients, who were predominantly female (89%) with average age of 50. With discounting, total costs averaged $125,407, including readmissions, with average QALYs of 1.93 at 3-year follow-up. Average QALYs without surgery were predicted to be 1.6 after 3 years. At 3- and 5-year follow-up, the ICER was $375,000 and $198,000, respectively. Projecting through 10-year follow-up, the ICER was $80,000. The 10-year CEAC revealed a 40% probability that the ICER was $80,000 or less, a 90% probability that the ICER was $90,000 or less, and a 100% probability that the ICER was less than $100,000. Conclusions Based on the WHO's suggested upper threshold for cost-effectiveness (3 times per capita GDP, or $140,000 in 2010 dollars), the analysis reveals that surgical treatment for ASD is cost-effective after a 10-year period based on predicted deterioration in HRQOL without surgery. The ICER well exceeds the WHO threshold at earlier follow-up intervals, highlighting the importance of the durability of surgical treatment in assessing the value of surgical intervention. Due to the study's methodology, the results are dependent on the predicted deterioration in HRQOL without surgery. As such, the results may not extend to patients whose HRQOL would remain steady without surgery. Future research should therefore pursue a direct comparison of QALYs for surgical and nonsurgical patients to better understand the cost-effectiveness of surgery for the average ASD patient.

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.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of hydrogel spacer in radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Rahul Ramesh Khairnar ◽  
Joseph Levy ◽  
Mark Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Incremental Effectiveness ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Fee Schedule

43 Background: A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is an FDA-approved medical device used to increase the separation between the rectum and the prostate. A recent phase III trial demonstrated a small reduction in the incidence of RT toxicities associated with use of HRS. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use in PC patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: A multi-state Markov model was constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving IMRT in the US (arms: IMRT alone vs. IMRT + HRS). Subgroups included delivery site of IMRT (hospital vs. ambulatory) and baseline sexual function (SF) (general population vs. those with good SF). Based on previous studies, recurrence and survival were assumed equal for both arms. Data on SF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, as well as potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and 2018 Physician Fee Schedule. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and value-based threshold analysis were conducted. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Results: The per-person 5-year incremental cost for HRS administered in a hospital was $4,008 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0273 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $146,746 (95% credible interval from PSA $125,638 – $178,049) for PC patients undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital vs. $73,359 ($66,732 – $86,767) for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good SF, the ICER was $55,153 ($46,002 – $76,090) and $26,542 ($17,399 – $46,044) in hospital vs. ambulatory facility. Conclusions: This study is the first to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRS based on long-term toxicity data. Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective in men with good SF at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 and it is marginally cost-effective for the entire population depending on the facility where the HRS is inserted.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Ruxolitinib vs Best Available Therapy in the Treatment of Myelofibrosis in Spain

10.36469/9808 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-174
Author(s):  
María Teresa Gómez-Casares ◽  
Juan Carlos Hernández-Boluda ◽  
Antonio Jiménez-Velasco ◽  
Joaquin Martínez-López ◽  
María Giovanna Ferrario ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Primary Myelofibrosis ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Primary myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare hematologic disease belonging to the group of Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms. Identification of the Janus Kinase (JAK) gene mutations inaugurated a new era in the targeted therapy of myeloproliferative diseases. Ruxolitinib is the first JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor specifically approved for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib vs best available therapy (BAT) in MF patients in Spain. Methods: A decision-tree and Markov model were adapted to the Spanish setting to assess the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib vs. BAT on a lifetime horizon (≤15 years) from the societal perspective, while healthcare system perspective was included in the one-way sensitivity analysis. The population was assumed to be similar to that of the COMFORT-II clinical trial (CT), which was also the source of treatment efficacy data. BAT composition was derived from the same CT and validated with Spanish experts. Utilities were derived from the COMFORT-I CT. Costs included treatment, management, hospitalizations, emergency and outpatient visits, as well as adverse events and end-of-life costs. Additionally, costs associated to productivity loss were taken into account. Resource use was validated with experts and costs were extracted from Spanish sources. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed to evaluate the consistency of the results under the uncertainty or variability of the input data. Results: Patients on ruxolitinib accumulated 6.1 life years gained (LYGs), resulting in 73% extra life-years compared to patients treated with BAT (3.5LYs gained). Ruxolitinib provided 4.4 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with a 99% improvement compared to BAT (2.2 QALYs). This analysis gave an incremental cost of €47 199 per LYG and an incremental cost of €55 616 per QALY gained from the societal perspective. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib would be cost-effective in Spain according to the end-of-life criteria defined by the NICE and commonly referred for Spain (cost-effectiveness threshold of €61 500/QALY), in line with results published for other European countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document