scholarly journals 12 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Newborn Screening for Severe Combined Immune Deficiency: literature review and results transferability

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. e4-e5
Author(s):  
Nargiz Mugarab-Samedi ◽  
Veronica Mugarab-Samedi ◽  
Kayla Parker ◽  
Luis Murguia Favela
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Severe Combined Immune Deficiency ◽  
Combined Immune Deficiency ◽  
Level I ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background The purpose of screening for Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID) is to enable timely diagnosis and treatment for this condition. Untreated SCID is uniformly fatal by 2 years of age. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is an effective treatment for SCID, and the success rate depends on the age at which it is performed. Earlier treatment improves survival, long term quality of life and decreases costs of treating patients, specifically by shortening hospitalization days. Screening, however, carries short-term implementation costs, that could potentially be a barrier to adding SCID to the newborn screening (NBS) panels. Objectives This literature review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NBS for SCID and perform basic economic analysis review on available published sources. We also assessed the published results and clinical inputs for transferability between different centers. Design/Methods We conducted a systematic search of medical electronic databases: Google Scholar, Ovid, Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and Evidence-Based Medicine and hand searched related references. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-2009) statement to report the findings. We extracted the details of individual study characteristics from each publication, assessed study quality, evaluated the effect sizes and assessed the influence of study design on the estimated effect size. The presence of small effect sizes was investigated using Funnel plots and Egger’s tests. Search terms included: newborn, SCID, newborn screening, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, medical costs, the value of a statistical life, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) We included cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, data from regional/national surveys. Results 298 records identified through database searching, 192 records removed. A total of 106 articles were found to be eligible for screening, 72 sources were excluded after abstracts review. Forty-four full -text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 14 were excluded (lack of relevance, misleading abstract). Thirty articles were included in the final literature review. We were looking for Level I evidence studies as a high-quality randomized trial or prospective study, sensible costs and alternatives, values obtained from many studies with multiway sensitivity analyses, a systematic review of Level I RCTs and Level I studies. A comparative economic analysis was performed on reviewed sources to determine the average cost-benefit of NBS for SCID among different centers. We used standard conversion to calculate total health costs and charges in US dollars. An average cost of screening for SCID per sample varies between 3.0 -6.0 US$, and at present, there are no known missed cases in SCID NBS programs. The average cost of treatment and QALY were the most common variables used in all reviewed sources and presented in Table 1. Charges for hospital care were more than 5 times higher for late-diagnosed cases of SCID compare to the early diagnosed cases (within the first 2 months of life). These results found to be none-specific to the particular countries, and have high potential transferability among different centers. Conclusion Our literature review analysis supports the cost-effectiveness of NBS for SCID. The opportunity of early treatment is a strong economic rationale for the addition of SCID screening to NBS programs.

scholarly journals ABSENTEÍSMO: análise através do custo-efetividade

Revista Foco ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Rodney Ferreira Junior
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Cost

Este artigo objetivou identificar por meio de indicadores, o custo-efetividade entre um absenteísmo organizacional existente e a medida adotada para superá-lo. Para a realização deste estudo, optou-se pela técnica metodológica da pesquisa bibliográfica, fundada na revisão de literatura. Com base nos textos selecionados e estudados. O resultado da pesquisa permitiu observar que tanto o atraso e a falta do trabalhador, por motivos intervenientes quanto às alternativas de superação adotadas, incorrem em custos para a empresa, necessitando, portanto, que o setor de finanças, analise e calcule o custo efetividade entre o absenteísmo existente e a medida de superação utilizada, para então identificar o custo-benefício e decidir pela alternativa mais adequada. Nesse aspecto, pôde-se concluir que a diferença entre o custo do absenteísmo e do custo da alternativa adotada, representará o custo-efetividade dos indicadores. Resta, portanto, analisar o custo-benefício de cada alternativa adotada em relação ao custo do absenteísmo, verificando a medida mais adequada a ser tomada. This article aimed to identify, through indicators, the cost-effectiveness between an existing organizational absenteeism and the measure adopted to overcome it. For the accomplishment of this study, we opted for the methodological technique of bibliographical research, based on literature review, based on selected and studied texts. The result of the research allowed to observe that both the delay and the absences of the worker to work, due to intervening reasons and the adopted alternatives of overcoming, incur costs for the company, thus requiring that the finance sector analyzes and calculates the cost Effectiveness between existing absenteeism and the overcoming measure used, to identify the cost-benefit and decide on the most appropriate alternative. Thus, in this respect, it can be concluded that the difference between the cost of absenteeism and the cost of the alternative adopted will represent the cost-effectiveness of the indicator (s). It remains to analyze the cost-benefit of each alternative adopted in relation to the cost of absenteeism, verifying the most appropriate measure to be taken.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Ultrasound scan as a potential source of nosocomial and cross-infection: a literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hadyme Miyague ◽  
Fernando Marum Mauad ◽  
Wellington de Paula Martins ◽  
Augusto César Garcia Benedetti ◽  
Ana Elizabeth Gomes de Melo Tavares Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Infection ◽  
Ultrasound Scan ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe authors review the main concepts regarding the importance of cleaning/disinfection of ultrasonography probes, aiming a better comprehension by practitioners and thus enabling strategies to establish a safe practice without compromising the quality of the examination and the operator productivity. In the context of biosafety, it is imperative to assume that contact with blood or body fluids represents a potential source of infection. Thus, in order to implement cleaning/disinfection practice, it is necessary to understand the principles of infection control, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of the measures to be implemented, and most importantly, to comprehend that such measures will not only benefit the health professional and the patient, but the society as a whole.

scholarly journals Can newborn screening be cost benefit procedure if preventing serious complications of cystic fibrosis?

2021 ◽  
pp. 020-023
Author(s):  
Šubat-Dežulović Mirna ◽  
Pelčić Gordana ◽  
Valković Ana ◽  
Flajšman-Raspor Sanja ◽  
Pelčić Goran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Metabolic Alkalosis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Inherited Disease ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Long Term Prognosis ◽  
The Cost

Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is a common inherited disease with reported mean prevalence of 0.737/10,000 in 27 EU countries (Farrell J Cyst Fibros. 2008). Still, many EU countries have not implemented CF in the Newborn Screening (NBS) programme, including our country. We report the case of a 7-month-old boy whose presenting signs of CF were life-threatening neurological symptoms caused by severe metabolic alkalosis and hypoelectrolytemia. By presenting this case, we argue hoping to persuade the authorities in any country that the available newborn screening for CF is the cost benefit procedure in preventing life treating consequences with the obvious impact on the long-term prognosis of this chronic disease.

Health economics and health promotion

2018 ◽  
pp. 113-140
Author(s):  
Colin Palfrey
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Cost Minimisation ◽  
The Cost

This chapter examines the techniques used by health economists to evaluate the value for money of health promotion initiatives. It first provides an overview of concepts related to economics and health economics, including efficiency, equality, equity and accessibility. Efficiency can be evaluated in terms of cost-minimisation, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-utility. The chapter then considers the various rationing strategies by which the NHS can try to reduce expenditure, the use of QALYs to compare the cost-effectiveness of health promotion projects, and conjoint analysis. It also explains how health economists calculate the cost to society of unhealthy lifestyles such as obesity and smoking, and goes on to tackle the question of prevention vs cure in health promotion, the expenditure on the NHS, and the limitations of health economics in evaluation of health promotion endeavours. The chapter concludes with an assessment of how to estimate the costs of health promotion.

scholarly journals A Systematic Literature Review on the Cost-Effectiveness of Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 171-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carme Pinyol ◽  
Jose Mª Cepeda ◽  
Inmaculada Roldan ◽  
Vanesa Roldan ◽  
Silvia Jimenez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of a Problem-Solving Intervention Aimed to Prevent Sickness Absence among Employees with Common Mental Disorders or Occupational Stress

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5234
Author(s):  
Marijke Keus Van De Poll ◽  
Gunnar Bergström ◽  
Irene Jensen ◽  
Lotta Nybergh ◽  
Lydia Kwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Common Mental Disorders ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Production Loss ◽  
The Cost

The cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of a work-directed intervention implemented by the occupational health service (OHS) for employees with common mental disorders (CMD) or stress related problems at work were investigated. The economic evaluation was conducted in a two-armed clustered RCT. Employees received either a problem-solving based intervention (PSI; n = 41) or care as usual (CAU; n = 59). Both were work-directed interventions. Data regarding sickness absence and production loss at work was gathered during a one-year follow-up. Bootstrap techniques were used to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) from both an employer and societal perspective. Intervention costs were lower for PSI than CAU. Costs for long-term sickness absence were higher for CAU, whereas costs for short-term sickness absence and production loss at work were higher for PSI. Mainly due to these costs, PSI was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. However, PSI was cost-beneficial from a societal perspective. CEA showed that a one-day reduction of long-term sickness absence costed on average €101 for PSI, a cost that primarily was borne by the employer. PSI reduced the socio-economic burden compared to CAU and could be recommended to policy makers. However, reduced long-term sickness absence, i.e., increased work attendance, was accompanied by employees perceiving higher levels of production loss at work and thus increased the cost for employers. This partly explains why an effective intervention was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. Hence, additional adjustments and/or support at the workplace might be needed for reducing the loss of production at work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document