Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Massachusetts

Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared five testing strategies: 1) PCR-severe-only: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms; 2) Self-screen: PCR-severe-only plus self-assessment of COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 3) PCR-any-symptom: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms with self-isolation if positive; 4) PCR-all: PCR-any-symptom and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 5) PCR-all-repeat: PCR-all with monthly re-testing. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re, 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results In all scenarios, PCR-all-repeat would lead to the best clinical outcomes and PCR-severe-only would lead to the worst; at Re 0.9, PCR-all-repeat vs. PCR-severe-only resulted in a 63% reduction in infections and a 44% reduction in deaths, but required >65-fold more tests/day with 4-fold higher costs. PCR-all-repeat had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when Re≥1.8. At all Re values, PCR-any-symptom was cost-saving compared to other strategies. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to restricting testing to only those with symptoms severe enough to warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Universal screening would be cost-effective when paired with monthly retesting in settings where the COVID-19 pandemic is surging.

Download Full-text

Clinical Impact, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Massachusetts

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa1418 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Anne M Neilan ◽

Elena Losina ◽

Audrey C Bangs ◽

Clare Flanagan ◽

Christopher Panella ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Low Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Entire Population ◽

Published Data ◽

Term Care ◽

Testing Strategies ◽

Incidence And Mortality ◽

Sensitivity Specificity

Abstract Background We projected the clinical and economic impact of alternative testing strategies on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Massachusetts using a microsimulation model. Methods We compared four testing strategies: 1) Hospitalized: PCR testing only patients with severe/critical symptoms warranting hospitalization; 2) Symptomatic: PCR for any COVID-19-consistent symptoms, with self-isolation if positive; 3) Symptomatic+asymptomatic-once: Symptomatic and one-time PCR for the entire population; and, 4) Symptomatic+asymptomatic-monthly: Symptomatic with monthly re-testing for the entire population. We examined effective reproduction numbers (Re, 0.9-2.0) at which policy conclusions would change. We assumed homogeneous mixing among the Massachusetts population (excluding those residing in long-term care facilities). We used published data on disease progression and mortality, transmission, PCR sensitivity/specificity (70/100%) and costs. Model-projected outcomes included infections, deaths, tests performed, hospital-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Results At Re 0.9, Symptomatic+asymptomatic-monthly vs. Hospitalized resulted in a 64% reduction in infections and a 46% reduction in deaths, but required >66-fold more tests/day with 5-fold higher costs. Symptomatic+asymptomatic-monthly had an ICER <$100,000/QALY only when Re ≥1.6; when test cost was ≤$3, every 14-day testing was cost-effective at all Re examined. Conclusions Testing people with any COVID-19-consistent symptoms would be cost-saving compared to testing only those whose symptoms warrant hospital care. Expanding PCR testing to asymptomatic people would decrease infections, deaths, and hospitalizations. Despite modest sensitivity, low-cost, repeat screening of the entire population could be cost-effective in all epidemic settings.

Download Full-text

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of an Adjuvanted Subunit Vaccine for the Prevention of Herpes Zoster and Post-herpetic Neuralgia

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofz219 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (7) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Christopher F Carpenter ◽

Annas Aljassem ◽

Jerry Stassinopoulos ◽

Giovanni Pisacreta ◽

David Hutton

Keyword(s):

Herpes Zoster ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Subunit Vaccine ◽

Age Groups ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Published Data ◽

Disease Epidemiology

Abstract Background Herpes zoster (HZ) develops in up to 50% of unvaccinated individuals, accounting for >1 million cases annually in the United States. A live attenuated HZ vaccine (LAV) is Food and Drug Administration approved for those age 50 years or older, though Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations are only for those age 60 years or older. LAV efficacy is ~70% for persons 50–59 years of age, with lower efficacy in older adults. A new 2-dose adjuvanted subunit vaccine (SUV) has >95% efficacy in persons 50–69 years of age and remains ~90% efficacious in persons vaccinated at age 70 years. Methods To estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of SUV, LAV, and no vaccination (NoV) strategies, a Markov model was developed based on published data on vaccine efficacy, durability of protection, quality of life, resource utilization, costs, and disease epidemiology. The perspective was US societal, and the cycle length was 1 year with a lifelong time horizon. SUV efficacy was estimated to wane at the same rate as LAV. Outcomes evaluated included lifetime costs, discounted life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results For individuals vaccinated at age 50 years, the ICER for LAV vs NoV was $118 535 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); at age 60 years, the ICER dropped to $42 712/QALY. SUV was more expensive but had better ICERs than LAV. At age 50, the ICER was $91 156/QALY, and it dropped to $19 300/QALY at age 60. Conclusions Vaccination with SUV was more cost-effective than LAV in all age groups studied. Vaccination with SUV at age 50 years appears cost-effective, with an ICER <$100 000/QALY.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in Singapore

Journal of Public Health ◽

10.1093/pubmed/fdy044 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 391-398

Author(s):

Monica Teng ◽

Hui Jun Zhou ◽

Liang Lin ◽

Pang Hung Lim ◽

Doreen Yeo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Target Population ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Decision Analytic Model ◽

Published Data ◽

Total Knee ◽

The Cost ◽

Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. Results Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. Conclusions Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.

Download Full-text

Abstract 1: Impact of Predicted Bleeding Risk on the Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Thrombin Inhibition vs. Heparin Monotherapy for Patients Undergoing PCI

Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes ◽

10.1161/circoutcomes.4.suppl_1.a1 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Amit P Amin ◽

Steven P Marso ◽

Sunil V Rao ◽

John Messenger ◽

John House ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Saving ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Bleeding Risk ◽

Thrombin Inhibitors ◽

Published Data ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost ◽

Predicted Risk

Introduction Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI) reduce bleeding and are cost-saving in patients (pts) undergoing PCI when compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition (GPI). Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of DTI alone vs. UFH alone, however. Methods We combined data on patient-level bleeding risk with several external data sources to estimate the economic impact of substituting DTI for UFH among unselected PCI patients. We used a validated model to predict the risk of major bleeding for 81,628 NCDR® CathPCI Registry® patients who received UFH only in 2004-06. DTI costs were estimated based on current FDA dosing guidelines and acquisition costs. The cost of major bleeding ($8722) was estimated based on data from the Mid America Heart Institute. The benefit of DTI vs. UFH alone was based on bleeding risk reduction from ISAR-REACT 3. A Markov model based on published data was used to estimate the loss in life expectancy associated with major bleeding. Results The overall rate of major bleeding in the reference population was 2.2%, the estimated cost of a major bleed was $8722, projected DTI costs were $641/pt and heparin costs were negligible ($4). Assuming that DTI use reduces the risk of bleeding by 33%, use of DTI for all patients was estimated to increase costs by $573/patient and was cost saving only for patients with a predicted risk of major bleeding >20% (0.16% of the overall population). When life years lost due to bleeding were included, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50K and $100K per life year gained, DTI was cost effective for patients with a bleeding risk ≥8% (2.5% patients) and ≥5% (7.9% of patients), respectively. Conclusions For patients undergoing PCI, substitution of DTI for UFH monotherapy is projected to increase costs for virtually all patients, but may be reasonably cost-effective for patients with a high predicted risk (≥5%) of bleeding.

Download Full-text

1389. Economic Evaluation of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Mexico

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1571 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S704-S704

Author(s):

Enrique Chacon-Cruz ◽

Estelle Meroc ◽

Sue Ann Costa-Clemens ◽

Thomas Verstraeten

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Saving ◽

Economic Burden ◽

Disease Burden ◽

Varicella Vaccine ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Varicella Vaccination ◽

Published Data ◽

Vaccination Strategies ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Universal varicella vaccination (UVV) has proven to be cost-effective in countries where implemented. However, this has not yet been evaluated for Mexico. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of UVV in the Mexican Immunization Program from both healthcare and societal perspectives. Methods The annual disease burden (varicella cases/deaths, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations) were derived from Mexican seroprevalence-published data adjusted to the 2020 country’s population. The annual economic burden was calculated by combining disease with Mexican published unit cost data. Four different vaccination strategies were evaluated: 1. One dose of a single varicella vaccine at 1 year old; 2. Two doses of single varicella vaccine at 1 and 6 years; 3. One dose of a single varicella vaccine at 1 year, and quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine (MMRV) at 6 years; 4. Two doses of MMRV at 1 and 6 years. We developed an economic model for each vaccination strategy where 20 consecutive birth cohorts were simulated. The impact of vaccination (number of avoided cases/deaths) was evaluated for a 20 years follow-up period based on vaccine effectiveness (87% and 97.4%), and assuming a 95% coverage. Subsequently, we estimated net vaccination costs, benefit-cost ratio (BCR), annual costs saved, cost-effectiveness ratio. Results From annual disease burden estimation, avoided cases with one dose, and two doses were of 20,570,722 and 23,029,751, respectively. From the 20 years cohort, the yearly number of varicella cases was estimated at 2,041,296, and total costs at $115,565,315 (USD) (healthcare perspective) and $165,372,061 (healthcare and societal perspectives). Strategies 1 and 2 were found to be cost-saving (BCR >1) (Figure 1), and strategy 3 to be cost-effective (CE) ($1539 per Life Year Gained). Strategy 4 was not CE. Strategies 1 and 2 would allow saving annually $53.16 million and $34.41 million, respectively, to the Mexican society. FIGURE 1 Conclusion 1.The disease and economic burden of varicella in Mexico are high. 2.UVV with four different vaccination strategies results in a high reduction of cases. 3.From healthcare and societal perspectives, UVV was shown to be cost-effective (with strategy 3), and cost-saving (with strategies using one dose or two doses separately). Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Download Full-text

Within trial cost-effectiveness of a structured lifestyle intervention in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes: Results from the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) Study

10.2337/figshare.13084802 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ping Zhang ◽

Karen M. Atkinson ◽

George Bray ◽

Haiying Chen ◽

Jeanne M. Clark ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Lifestyle Intervention ◽

Health Utility Index ◽

Health Benefit ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Health Utility ◽

Health Care Expenditures ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year

OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) compared to standard diabetes support and education (DSE) in adults with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, as implemented in the Action for Health in Diabetes study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data were from 4,827 participants during the first 9 years of the study from 2001 to 2012. Information on Health Utility Index-2 and -3, SF-6D, and Feeling Thermometer [FT]), cost of delivering the interventions, and health expenditures were collected during the study. CE was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Costs were in 2012 US dollars. RESULTS <a>Over the </a>9 years studied, the mean cumulative intervention costs and mean cumulative health care expenditures were $11,275 and $64,453 per person for ILI and $887 and $68,174 for DSE. Thus, ILI cost $6,666 more per person than DSE. Additional QALYs gained by ILI were not statistically significant measured by the HUIs and were 0.17 and 0.16, respectively, measured by SF-6D and FT. The ICERs ranged from no health benefit with a higher cost based on HUIs, to $96,458/QALY and $43,169/QALY, respectively, based on SF-6D and FT. Conclusions Whether ILI was cost-effective over the 9-year period is unclear because different health utility measures led to different conclusions.

Download Full-text

Cost–effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy ◽

10.2217/imt-2020-0237 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Wei Jiang ◽

Zhichao He ◽

Tiantian Zhang ◽

Chongchong Guo ◽

Jianli Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Hormone Receptor ◽

Egf Receptor ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Hormone Receptor Positive ◽

The Cost ◽

Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost–effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

Download Full-text

A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽

10.1177/1460408617738810 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 45-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maxwell S Renna ◽

Cristiano van Zeller ◽

Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽

Cherlyn Tong ◽

Jasmine Gambini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Cost Utility Analysis ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

One Year ◽

Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for cluster B personality disorders

The British Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1192/bjp.bp.109.070482 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 196 (5) ◽

pp. 396-403 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

Djøra I. Soeteman ◽

Roel Verheul ◽

Jos Delimon ◽

Anke M. M. A. Meerman ◽

Ellen van den Eijnden ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Personality Disorders ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Decision Analytic Model ◽

Day Hospital ◽

Payer Perspective ◽

Cluster B Personality Disorders ◽

Effective Choice ◽

The Cost

BackgroundRecommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence.AimsA formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders.MethodA probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of €12 274 per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at €113 298. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at €56 325 and €286 493 per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at €9895 and €155 797 per recovered patient-year, and €43 427 and €561 188 per QALY.ConclusionsOut-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of Stockholm3 test and magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer screening: a microsimulation study

10.1101/2021.03.31.21254617 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Shuang Hao ◽

Emelie Heintz ◽

Ellinor Östensson ◽

Andrea Discacciati ◽

Fredrik Jäderling ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Prostate Cancer ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Life Years ◽

Incidence And Mortality ◽

Screening Strategies ◽

Reflex Threshold

AbstractObjectiveAssess the cost-effectiveness of no screening and quadrennial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based screening for prostate cancer using either Stockholm3 or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test as a reflex test.MethodsTest characteristics were estimated from the STHLM3-MR study (NCT03377881). A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a lifetime societal perspective using a microsimulation model for men aged 55-69 in Sweden for no screening and three quadrennial screening strategies, including: PSA≥3ng/mL; and Stockholm3 with reflex test thresholds of PSA≥1.5 and 2ng/mL. Men with a positive test had an MRI, and those MRI positive had combined targeted and systematic biopsies. Predictions included the number of tests, cancer incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainties in key parameters were assessed using sensitivity analyses.ResultsCompared with no screening, the screening strategies were predicted to reduce prostate cancer deaths by 7-9% across a lifetime and were considered to be moderate costs per QALY gained in Sweden. Using Stockholm3 with a reflex threshold of PSA≥2ng/mL resulted in a 60% reduction in MRI compared with screening using PSA. This Stockholm3 strategy was cost-effective with a probability of 70% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €47,218 (500,000 SEK).ConclusionsAll screening strategies were considered to be moderate costs per QALY gained compared with no screening. Screening with Stockholm3 test at a reflex threshold of PSA≥2ng/mL and MRI was predicted to be cost-effective in Sweden. Use of the Stockholm3 test may reduce screening-related harms and costs while maintaining the health benefits from early detection.

Download Full-text