scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Li ◽  
Hanting Liu ◽  
Christopher Kit Fairley ◽  
Zhuoru Zou ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Booster Vaccination ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Background: Over 86% of older adults aged ≥65 years are fully vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 in the United States (US). Waning protection of the existing vaccines promotes the new vaccination strategies, such as providing a booster shot for those fully vaccinated. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after 2nd dose) in those aged ≥65 years, from a healthcare system perspective. Findings: Compared with 2-doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million, but save $6.7 million in direct medical costs in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that with a COVID-19 incidence of 9.1/100,000 person-day, a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. This threshold will increase with a decrease in vaccine and booster efficacies. Doubling the vaccination cost or halving the medical cost for COVID-19 treatment alone would not alter the conclusion of cost-effectiveness, but certain combinations of the two might render the booster strategy not cost-effective. Interpretation: Offering BNT162b2 boosters to older adults aged ≥65 years in the US is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-COV-2 transmission. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China. Berlina and Bill Gates Foundation

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Epilepsy Surgery and Surgical Evaluation in the United States

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehryar R Sheikh ◽  
Michael P Steinmetz ◽  
Michael W Kattan ◽  
Mendel Singer ◽  
Belinda Udeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Surgical Evaluation ◽  
The Cost

Abstract INTRODUCTION Surgery is an effective treatment for many pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients, but incurs considerable cost. It is unknown whether surgery and surgical evaluation are cost-effective strategies in the United States. We aim to evaluate whether 1) surgery is cost-effective for patients who have been deemed surgical candidates when compared to continued medical management, 2) surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients who have drug-resistant temporal epilepsy and may or may not ultimately be deemed surgical candidates METHODS We use a Monte Carlo simulation method to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between two health states (‘seizure free’ and ‘having seizures’) as part of a Markov process, based on literature estimates. We adopt both healthcare and societal perspectives, including direct healthcare costs and indirect costs such as lost earnings by patients and care providers. We estimate variability of model predictions using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 1) Epilepsy surgery is cost effective in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost saving and more effective than medical management in the long run, with 95% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations favoring surgery. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost effective within 3 yr. At 5 yr, surgery has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,600, which is significantly below the societal willingness-to-pay (∼ $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) and comparable to hip/knee arthroplasty. 2) Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in pharmacoresistant patients even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is low (5%-10%). Even if the probability of surgical eligibility is only 10%, surgical referral has an ICER of $96,000/QALY, which is below societal willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION Epilepsy surgery and surgical evaluation are both cost-effective strategies in the United States. Pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Screening of Pregnant Women in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1888-1895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Chaillon ◽  
Elizabeth B Rand ◽  
Nancy Reau ◽  
Natasha K Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Hcv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus’ (HCV) chronic prevalence among pregnant women in the United States doubled nationally from 2009–2014 (~0.7%), yet many cases remain undiagnosed. Screening pregnant women is not recommended by the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, despite new American Association For the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommending screening for this group. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for pregnant women in the United States. Methods An HCV natural history Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal HCV screening of pregnant women, followed by treatment after pregnancy, compared to background risk-based screening from a health-care payer perspective. We assumed a HCV chronic prevalence of 0.73% among pregnant women, based on national data. We assumed no Medicaid reimbursement restrictions by fibrosis stage at baseline, but explored differing restrictions in sensitivity analyses. We assessed costs (in US dollars) and health outcomes (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) over a lifetime horizon, using new HCV drug costs of $25 000/treatment. We assessed mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained. We additionally evaluated the potential population impact. Results Universal antenatal screening was cost-effective in all treatment eligibility scenarios (mean ICER <$3000/QALY gained). Screening remained cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.07%, which is the lowest estimated prevalence in the United States (in Hawaii). Screening the ~5.04 million pregnant women in 2018 could result in the detection and treatment of 33 000 women, based on current fibrosis restrictions. Conclusions Universal screening for HCV among pregnant women in the United States is cost-effective and should be recommended nationally.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Antenatal Rescreening Among Pregnant Women for Hepatitis C in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Chaillon ◽  
Adriane Wynn ◽  
Tatyana Kushner ◽  
Nancy Reau ◽  
Natasha K Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Hcv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract To inform proposed changes in U.S. HCV screening guidelines, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV antenatal rescreening for women without evidence of HCV during a prior pregnancy, using a previously published model. Universal HCV rescreening among pregnant women was cost-effective (ICER $6,000/QALY) and should be recommended nationally.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non–small-cell Lung Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuezhi Hao ◽  
Aizong Shen ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. Decisions have to be made about allocating healthcare resources. Economic evidence could support policy decisions to fund expensive interventions. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations. It is set in the context of the US and China, representing developed and resource-constrained settings, respectively.Patients and Methods: A Markov model consisting of three discrete health states was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate-227 trial, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated for the two strategies. Subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased by 1.260 QALYs with an additional cost of $95,617 compared with the features of chemotherapy, which led to an ICER of $75,871 per QALY gained. INHB indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment had a 99% probability of being cost-effective at the ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY in all subgroups. The results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcomes were robust. In China, the ICER of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy was $59,773/QALY, and the INHB was -1.972 QALY at the threshold of $27,351/QALY.Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment is a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations in the United States. However, nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not a preferred option in China.

scholarly journals Surgical instrumentation: the true cost of instrument trays and a potential strategy for optimization

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie M. Mhlaba ◽  
Emily W. Stockert ◽  
Martin Coronel ◽  
Alexander J. Langerman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Waste Reduction ◽  
Significant Cost ◽  
Instrument Type ◽  
Hospital Revenue ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
The Cost

Objective: Operating rooms (OR) generate a large portion of hospital revenue and waste. Consequently, improving efficiency and reducing waste is a high priority. Our objective was to quantify waste associated with opened but unused instruments from trays and to compare this with the cost of individually wrapping instruments.Methods: Data was collected from June to November of 2013 in a 550-bed hospital in the United States. We recorded the instrument usage of two commonly-used trays for ten cases each. The time to decontaminate and reassemble instrument trays and peel packs was measured, and the cost to reprocess one instrument was calculated.Results: Average utilization was 14% for the Plastic Soft Tissue Tray and 29% for the Major Laparotomy Tray. Of 98 instruments in the Plastics tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 59% were used in no observed cases. Of 110 instruments in the Major Tray (n = 10), 0% was used in all cases observed and 25% were used in no observed cases. Average cost to reprocess one instrument was $0.34-$0.47 in a tray and $0.81-$0.84 in a peel pack, or individually-wrapped instrument.Conclusions: We estimate that the cost of peel packing an instrument is roughly two times the cost of tray packing. Therefore, it becomes more cost effective from a processing standpoint to package an instrument in a peel pack when there is less than a 42%-56% probability of use depending on instrument type. This study demonstrates an opportunity for reorganization of instrument delivery that could result in a significant cost-savings and waste reduction.

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of OnabotulinumtoxinA for Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity in the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh J. Carlson ◽  
Ryan N. Hansen ◽  
Roger R. Dmochowski ◽  
Denise R. Globe ◽  
Danielle C. Colayco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Detrusor Overactivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Evaluating Public Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of Head Start*

2016 ◽  
Vol 131 (4) ◽  
pp. 1795-1848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Kline ◽  
Christopher R. Walters
Keyword(s):  
Head Start ◽  
Test Score ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Public Programs ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Fiscal Impacts ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract We use data from the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Head Start, the largest early childhood education program in the United States. Head Start draws roughly a third of its participants from competing preschool programs, many of which receive public funds. We show that accounting for the fiscal impacts of such program substitution pushes estimates of Head Start’s benefit-cost ratio well above one under a wide range of assumptions on the structure of the market for preschool services and the dollar value of test score gains. To parse the program’s test score impacts relative to home care and competing preschools, we selection-correct test scores in each care environment using excluded interactions between experimental assignments and household characteristics. We find that Head Start generates larger test score gains for children who would not otherwise attend preschool and for children who are less likely to participate in the program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document