scholarly journals Comparative clinical- and cost-effectiveness of candesartan and losartan in the management of hypertension and heart failure: a systematic review, meta- and cost-utility analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Grosso ◽  
P. N. Bodalia ◽  
R. J. MacAllister ◽  
A. D. Hingorani ◽  
J. C. Moon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a Heart Failure Telemonitoring Program Through a Microsimnulation Model: Cost-Utility Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Boodoo ◽  
Qi Zhang ◽  
Heather J Ross ◽  
Ana Carolina Alba ◽  
Audrey Laporte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND Heart failure (HF) is a major public health issue in Canada that is associated with high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates and high financial and social burdens. Telemonitoring (TM) has been shown to improve all-cause mortality and hospitalization rates in patients with HF. The <i>Medly</i> program is a TM intervention integrated as standard of care at a large Canadian academic hospital for ambulatory patients with HF that has been found to improve patient outcomes. However, the cost-effectiveness of the <i>Medly</i> program is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVE This study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of the <i>Medly</i> program compared with the standard of care for HF in Ontario, Canada, from the perspective of the public health care payer. METHODS Using a microsimulation model, individual patient data were simulated over a 25-year time horizon to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the <i>Medly</i> program and standard care for patients with HF treated in the ambulatory care setting. Data were sourced from a <i>Medly</i> Program Evaluation study and literature to inform model parameters, such as <i>Medly</i>’s effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations, health care and intervention costs, and model transition probabilities. Scenario analyses were conducted in relation to HF severity and TM deployment models. One-way deterministic effectiveness analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the impact on the results of uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS The <i>Medly</i> program was associated with an average total cost of Can $102,508 (US $77,626) per patient and total QALYs of 5.51 per patient compared with the average cost of Can $97,497 (US $73,831) and QALYs of 4.95 per patient in the Standard Care Group. This led to an incremental cost of Can $5011 (US $3794) and incremental QALY of 0.566, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Can $8850 (US $6701)/QALY. Cost-effectiveness improved in relation to patients with advanced HF and with deployment models in which patients used their own equipment. Baseline and alternative scenarios consistently showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness greater than 85% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of Can $50,000 (US $37,718). Although the results showed some sensitivity to assumptions about effectiveness parameters, the intervention was found to remain cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS The <i>Medly</i> program for patients with HF is cost-effective compared with standard care using commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. This study provides evidence for decision makers on the use of TM for HF, supports the use of a nurse-led model of TM that embeds clinically validated algorithms, and informs the use of economic modeling for future evaluations of early-stage health informatics technology.

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF NT-PROBNP-GUIDED MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE IN CHRONIC HEART FAILURE

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deddo Moertl ◽  
Sabine Steiner ◽  
Doug Coyle ◽  
Rudolf Berger
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Utility Analysis

Objectives: A recent randomized, controlled trial in chronic heart failure patients showed that NT-proBNP-guided, intensive patient management (BMC) on top of multidisciplinary care reduced all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations compared with multidisciplinary care (MC) or usual care (UC). We now performed a cost-utility analysis of these interventions from a payer's perspective.Methods: Costs related to hospitalizations, ambulatory physician and nurse visits, and NT-proBNP testing for the three management strategies were acquired for both Austria (€) and Canada ($) and combined with the survival and quality of life data from the clinical trial for cost-effectiveness analysis. Data on long-term survival, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were extrapolated for a 20-year time horizon using a Markov model, which simulated the progression of disease through beta-blocker use, hospitalizations, and mortality.Results: BMC was the most cost-effective strategy as it was dominant (cost-saving with improved health outcome) over both MC and UC based on both Austrian and Canadian costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for MC relative to UC were €3,746 and $5,554 per QALY gained for Austrian and Canadian costs, respectively. The probabilities for BMC being the most cost-effective strategy were 92 percent at a threshold value of Austrian €40,000 and 93 percent at a threshold value of Canadian $50,000.Conclusions: NT-proBNP-guided, intensive HF patient management in addition to multidisciplinary care not only reduces death and hospitalization but also proves to be cost-effective.

Cost‐effectiveness in surgery: concepts of cost‐utility analysis explained

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vissapragada ◽  
Norma Bulamu ◽  
Jonathan Karnon ◽  
Roger Yazbek ◽  
David I. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

Telestroke for acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review of economic evaluations and a de novo cost–utility analysis for a middle income country

2021 ◽  
pp. 1357633X2110324
Author(s):  
Elise Tan ◽  
Lan Gao ◽  
Huong NQ Tran ◽  
Dominique Cadilhac ◽  
Chris Bladin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Acute Ischaemic Stroke ◽  
Rural China ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Utility Analysis

Introduction Telemedicine can alleviate the problems faced in rural settings in providing access to specialist stroke care. The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of this model of care outside high-income countries is limited. This study aimed to conduct: (a) a systematic review of economic evaluations of telestroke and (b) a cost–utility analysis of telestroke, using China as a case study. Methods We systematically searched Embase, Medline Complete and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria: full economic evaluations of telemedicine/telestroke networks examining the use of thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, published in English. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken using a Markov model incorporating a decision tree to simulate the delivery of telestroke for acute ischaemic stroke in rural China, compared to no telestroke from a societal and healthcare perspective. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results. Results Of 559 publications found, eight met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review (two cost-effectiveness analyses and six cost–utility analyses, all performed in high-income countries). Telestroke was a cost-saving/cost-effective intervention in five out of the eight studies. In our modelled analysis for rural China, telestroke was the dominant strategy, with estimated cost savings of Chinese yuan 4,328 (US$627) and additional 0.0925 quality-adjusted life years per patient. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the base case results. Discussion Consistent with published economic evaluations of telestroke in other jurisdictions, telestroke represents a cost-effective solution to enhance stroke care in rural China.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of a consensus and evidence-based medication review to optimize and potentially reduce psychotropic drug prescription in institutionalized dementia patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireia Massot Mesquida ◽  
Frans Folkvord ◽  
Gemma Seda ◽  
Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva ◽  
Pere Torán Monserrat
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Dementia Patients ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Growing evidence shows the effects of psychotropic drugs on the evolution of dementia. Until now, only a few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized dementia patients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of intervention performed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) (MN) based on consensus between specialized caregivers involved in the management of dementia patients for optimizing and potentially reducing the prescription of inappropriate psychotropic drugs in this population. This analysis was conducted using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) tool. Methods The MAFEIP tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across different studies in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as health and social care utilization. Cost estimates are based on scientific literature and expert opinion; they are direct costs and include medical visits, hospital care, medical tests and exams and drugs administered, among other concepts. The healthcare costs of patients using the intervention were calculated by means of a medication review that compared patients’ drug-related costs before, during and after the use of the intervention conducted in MN between 2012 and 2014. The cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of a health care system with a time horizon of 12 months. Results The tool calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention, revealing it to be dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. The ICER of the intervention was in the lower right quadrant, making it an intervention that is always accepted even with the lowest given Willingness to Pay (WTP) threshold value (€15,000). Conclusions The results of this study show that the intervention was dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. This dominant intervention is therefore recommended to interested investors for systematic application.

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

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document