P3816Cost-effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia catheter ablation: limitations in the current trial evidence base

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Chen ◽  
M Gomes ◽  
J V Garcia ◽  
P D Lambiase
Keyword(s):  
Ventricular Tachycardia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Life Assessment ◽  
System Level ◽  
Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Trial Evidence

Abstract Introduction Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) have suffered from criticisms including a lack of generalisability as well as a lack of cost-effectiveness analysis of the different interventions being studied. Such analyses are used by organisations including the UK's National institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to inform system-level decisions regarding which treatments are funded. There is the potential for a growing chasm to exist between what is the latest innovation in cardiology and what can be afforded. Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation versus anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in ischemic heart disease. Methods A decision-analytic Markov model was used to calculate the costs and health outcomes of catheter ablation or AAD treatment of VT for a hypothetical cohort of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy andan implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Model inputs where informed using RCT-level evidence [Table 1] wherever possible. Costs were calculated from a UK perspective. Results Catheter ablation vs. AAD therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £144,150 (€161,448) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, over a five-year time horizon. The ICER for a ten-year time horizon was £75,074 (€84,083) and £69,986 (€78,384) over the cohort's lifetime. Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for model parameter uncertainty, the likelihood of catheter ablation being cost-effective was only 11%, assuming a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 used by the NICE [Figure 1]. Table 1. Summary of RCT level source data used to inform Markov model inputs Name of trial SMASH VT VTACH SMS CALYPSO VANISH VISTA Sample size 128 110 111 27 259 118 Mean age 67 66 67 64 68 66 Control AAD AAD AAD AAD AAD Clinical ablation Intervention Ablation Ablation Ablation Ablation Ablation Substrate ablation Length of follow up 22 months 24 months 28 months 6 months 28 months 12 months Mortality (%) 11% [AAD] 7% [AAD] 19% [AAD] 14% [AAD] 28% [AAD] 15% [C-ablation] vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. 9% [Ablation] 10% [Ablation] 17% [Ablation] 15% [Ablation] 27% [Ablation] 9% [S-Ablation] Readmission (%) 19% [AAD] 55% [AAD] 44% [AAD] 50% [AAD] 31% [AAD] 32% [C-ablation] vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. 12% [S-ablation] 6% [Ablation] 33% [Ablation] 39% [Ablation] 38% [Ablation] 25% [Ablation] Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Conclusion Catheter ablation of VT is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with AAD therapy alone in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy implanted with an ICD based on pooled trial evidence. However, better designed studies incorporating detailed and more frequent quality of life assessment are needed to advise health policy in this field and to provide more informed cost-effectiveness analyses. Acknowledgement/Funding NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of ablation of ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: limitations in the trial evidence base

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Chen ◽  
Manuel Gomes ◽  
Jason V Garcia ◽  
Ross J Hunter ◽  
Anthony W Chow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Ventricular Tachycardia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Trial Evidence

ObjectiveCatheter ablation is an important treatment for ventricular tachycardia (VT) that reduces the frequency of episodes of VT. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy.MethodsA decision-analytic Markov model was used to calculate the costs and health outcomes of catheter ablation or AAD treatment of VT for a hypothetical cohort of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The health states and input parameters of the model were informed by patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data using randomised clinical trial (RCT)-level evidence wherever possible. Costs were calculated from a 2018 UK perspective.ResultsCatheter ablation versus AAD therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £144 150 (€161 448) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, over a 5-year time horizon. This ICER was driven by small differences in patient-reported HRQL between AAD therapy and catheter ablation. However, only three of six RCTs had measured patient-reported HRQL, and when this was done, it was assessed infrequently. Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the likelihood of catheter ablation being cost-effective was only 11%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 used by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.ConclusionCatheter ablation of VT is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with AAD therapy based on the current randomised trial evidence. However, better designed studies incorporating detailed and more frequent quality of life assessments are needed to provide more robust and informed cost-effectiveness analyses.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of Intraperitoneal Compared With Intravenous Chemotherapy for Women With Optimally Resected Stage III Ovarian Cancer: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (25) ◽  
pp. 4144-4150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Havrilesky ◽  
Angeles Alvarez Secord ◽  
Kathleen M. Darcy ◽  
Deborah K. Armstrong ◽  
Shalini Kulasingam
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology Group ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Resected Stage ◽  
The Cost

Purpose To determine the cost effectiveness of intraperitoneal versus intravenous regimens for adjuvant treatment of optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods A decision model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness at 7-, 11.5-, and 35-year horizons of intravenous carboplatin and paclitaxel (IV-CARBO/PAC), intravenous cisplatin and paclitaxel (IV-CIS/PAC), or intravenous paclitaxel followed by intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel (IP-CIS/PAC). Survival data were from women participating in representative Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols. Medicare reimbursement rates and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Database were used to estimate costs for treatment regimens and grade 3 to 4 adverse effects, respectively. Results Median predicted survival was 66, 57, 51, and 48 months for IP-CIS/PAC, IV-CARBO/PAC, IV-CIS/PAC (GOG 172), or IV-CIS/PAC (GOG 158), respectively. Across a range of analyses, IV-CIS/PAC was more costly and had lower life expectancy than IV-CARBO/PAC. Compared with IV-CARBO/PAC, IP-CIS/PAC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $180,022 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved at a 7-year time horizon, $71,835/QALY at 11.5 years, and $32,053/QALY over a lifetime. Extending the survival advantage of IP-CIS/PAC over 11.5 years and a lifetime results in ICERs of $26,249 and $23,973, respectively. Assuming IP-CIS/PAC and IV-CIS/PAC were equally effective when administered on an outpatient basis, the ICER of IP-CIS/PAC compared with IV-CARBO/PAC was $26,311. Conclusion Inpatient IP-CIS/PAC, while not cost effective compared with IV-CARBO/PAC at 7 years, becomes cost effective if a longer time horizon is modeled and/or a survival benefit can be assumed to persist longer than currently available data. Outpatient IP-CIS/PAC may also be cost effective compared with IV-CARBO/PAC if proven as effective as inpatient IP-CIS/PAC.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of milk powder fortified with potassium to decrease blood pressure and prevent cardiovascular events among the adult population in China: a Markov model

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Livia Dainelli ◽  
Tingting Xu ◽  
Min Li ◽  
Diane Zimmermann ◽  
Hai Fang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Market Price ◽  
Daily Intake ◽  
Milk Powder ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Case Scenario

ObjectiveTo model the long-term cost-effectiveness of consuming milk powder fortified with potassium to decrease systolic blood pressure (SBP) and prevent cardiovascular events.DesignA best case scenario analysis using a Markov model was conducted.Participants8.67% of 50–79 year olds who regularly consume milk in China, including individuals with and without a prior diagnosis of hypertension.InterventionThe model simulated the potential impact of a daily intake of two servings of milk powder fortified with potassium (+700 mg/day) vs the consumption of a milk powder without potassium fortification, assuming a market price equal to 0.99 international dollars (intl$; the consumption of a milk powder without potassium fortification, assuming a market price equal to intl$0.99 for the latter and to intl$1.12 for the first (+13.13%). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results.Main outcome measuresEstimates of the incidence of cardiovascular events and subsequent mortality in China were derived from the literature as well as the effect of increasing potassium intake on blood pressure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of a milk powder fortified with potassium taking into consideration the direct medical costs associated with the cardiovascular events, loss of working days and health utilities impact.ResultsWith an ICER equal to int$4711.56 per QALY (quality-adjusted life year) in the best case scenario and assuming 100% compliance, the daily consumption of a milk powder fortified with potassium shown to be a cost-effective approach to decrease SBP and reduce cardiovascular events in China. Healthcare savings due to prevention would amount to intl$8.41 billion. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.ConclusionTogether with other preventive interventions, the consumption of a milk powder fortified with potassium could represent a cost-effective strategy to attenuate the rapid rise in cardiovascular burden among the 50–79 year olds who regularly consume milk in China.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Etoricoxib versus Celecoxib and Nonselective NSAIDs in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis in Norway

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen P. Jansen ◽  
Stephanie D. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Ceiling Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objectives. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib (90 mg) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), and the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg) and diclofenac (150 mg) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.Methods. A previously developed Markov state-transition model was used to estimate costs and benefits associated with initiating treatment with the different competing NSAIDs. Efficacy, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety, and resource use data were obtained from the literature. Data from different studies were synthesized and translated into direct costs and quality adjusted life years by means of a Bayesian comprehensive decision modeling approach.Results. Over a 30-year time horizon, etoricoxib is associated with about 0.4 more quality adjusted life years than the other interventions. At 1 year, naproxen is the most cost-saving strategy. However, etoricoxib is cost and quality adjusted life year saving relative to celecoxib, as well as diclofenac and naproxen after 5 years of follow-up. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of 200,000 Norwegian krones per quality adjusted life year, there is a >95% probability that etoricoxib is the most-cost-effective treatment when a time horizon of 5 or more years is considered.Conclusions. Etoricoxib is the most cost-effective NSAID for initiating treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax Plus Azacitidine Versus Azacitidine in Newly Diagnosed Adult Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy from a United States Payer Perspective

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Keith W. Pratz ◽  
Xinglei Chai ◽  
Jipan Xie ◽  
Lei Yin ◽  
Xiaoyu Nie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Intensive Chemotherapy ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Analysis Group ◽  
Payer Perspective

Abstract Background: The phase 3 VIALE-A trial (NCT02993523) demonstrated that venetoclax plus azacitidine (VEN+AZA) improved overall survival (OS) and led to higher remission rates compared with AZA monotherapy, in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Based on the results from VIALE-A, VEN+AZA received full United States (US) Food and Drug Administration approval in October 2020 for patients with ND AML aged ≥75 years, or who were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy due to comorbidities. This study aims to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness value of the VEN+AZA regimen from the VIALE-A trial from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 28-day cycle was developed to estimate costs and outcomes of treatment with VEN+AZA vs. AZA among patients with ND AML, who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, over a lifetime time horizon. The model included three health states: event-free survival (EFS), progressive/relapsed disease, and death. Within the EFS state, patients were further partitioned into time spent in complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi), and time spent in non-CR/CRi. Efficacy inputs (OS, EFS, and CR/CRi rate) for both treatment arms were estimated using VIALE-A data. Best-fit parametric models per Akaike information criterion (AIC) were used to extrapolate OS until it reached EFS, and extrapolate EFS for each treatment until Year 5. Patients who remained in EFS after Year 5 were considered cured, and were assumed to have the same mortality as the US general population. Mean time on treatment (ToT) for both regimens was based on the time observed in VIALE-A. The costs for drug acquisition, drug administration for initial and subsequent treatments, subsequent stem cell transplant procedures, adverse events (AEs), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with each health state were obtained from the literature or publicly available data. All costs were inflated to 2021 US dollars. Utilities for each health state were estimated using EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) data from VIALE-A, based on the US crosswalk value set. Information on disutilities due to Grade 3/4 AEs were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA), scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, compared with AZA, VEN+AZA was associated with an increase of 1.89 LYs (1.10 vs. 2.99, respectively) and 1.45 QALYs (0.84 vs. 2.30, respectively). Patients in the VEN+AZA arm incurred higher total costs ($250,486 vs. $110,034 for patients in the AZA arm). The ICER for VEN+AZA vs. AZA was estimated to be $74,141 per LY gained, and $96,579 per QALY gained. Results from the DSA and scenario analyses supported the base-case findings, with ICERs ranging from $60,922 to $138,554 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to alternative approaches for ToT estimation, subsequent treatment HRU costs, cure time point, and the extrapolation approach for EFS. Results from PSA showed that compared with AZA, VEN+AZA was cost-effective in 99.9% of cases at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Compared with AZA monotherapy, VEN+AZA results in a favorable ICER of $96,579 per QALY gained over a lifetime time horizon. The base-case results suggest that, compared with AZA, VEN+AZA is a cost-effective strategy based on a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses support the base-case results. Thus, VEN+AZA offers a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of patients with ND AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy from a US third-party payer perspective. Disclosures Pratz: Agios: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cellgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millenium: Research Funding. Chai: Analysis Group, Inc.: Consultancy, Current Employment; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy. Yin: Analysis Group, Inc.: Consultancy, Current Employment; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy. Nie: Analysis Group, Inc.: Consultancy, Current Employment; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy. Montez: Genentech, Inc: Current Employment, Other: May hold equity. Iantuono: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Downs: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ma: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Other: May hold equity.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Xin Sun ◽  
Bin Cui ◽  
Shan-Shan Cao ◽  
Qi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Ru-Yi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed.Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used.Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (−187017.543, −284,674.922, and −9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (−216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV.Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi Mahmoud ◽  
Chris van Lieshout ◽  
Geert W J Frederix ◽  
Bindia Jharap ◽  
Bas Oldenburg
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Care Expenditures ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Abstract Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

scholarly journals Gene therapy in hemophilia A: a cost-effectiveness analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (14) ◽  
pp. 1792-1798 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicoletta Machin ◽  
Margaret V. Ragni ◽  
Kenneth J. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Gene Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Factor Viii ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Hemophilia A ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Severe Hemophilia ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Therapy Cost

Key Points Gene therapy is cost-effective in severe hemophilia A compared with standard factor VIII prophylaxis. Over a 10-year time horizon, gene therapy cost $1M and resulted in 8.33 QALYs gained, whereas prophylaxis cost $1.7M and resulted in 6.62 QALYs gained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document