scholarly journals Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 328 (7442) ◽  
pp. 747 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Wonderling ◽  
Andrew J Vickers ◽  
Richard Grieve ◽  
Rob McCarney
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chronic Headache ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

AbstractObjective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chronic headache.Design Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months from appropriately trained physiotherapists, or to usual care alone.Main outcome measure Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.Results Total costs during the one year period of the study were on average higher for the acupuncture group (£403; $768;€598) than for controls (£217) because of the acupuncture practitioners' costs. The mean health gain from acupuncture during the one year of the trial was 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to a base case estimate of £9180 per QALY gained. This result was robust to sensitivity analysis. Cost per QALY dropped substantially when the analysis incorporated likely QALY differences for the years after the trial.Conclusions Acupuncture for chronic headache improves health related quality of life at a small additional cost; it is relatively cost effective compared with a number of other interventions provided by the NHS.

scholarly journals Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Smith-Palmer ◽  
O. R. Leeuwenkamp ◽  
J. Virk ◽  
N. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. Results For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of a physician deployment program to improve access to healthcare in rural and underserved areas in the Philippines

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033455
Author(s):  
Anton L.V. Avanceña ◽  
Kim Patrick S Tejano ◽  
David W. Hutton
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Rural Municipality ◽  
Healthcare Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of Doctor to the Barrios (DTTB), a physician deployment program in the Philippines.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree models with a lifetime time horizon and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.SettingSocietal and healthcare perspectives.PopulationHypothetical cohort of children under 5 years in two provinces (Aklan and Nueva Ecija) and in a representative rural municipality.ParticipantsNone.InterventionsDTTB’s impact on paediatric pneumonia and diarrhoea outcomes compared with a scenario without DTTB.Main outcome measuresCosts, effectiveness (in terms of lives saved and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsDTTB is cost-effective in the two provinces that were included in the study from societal and healthcare perspectives. Looking at a representative rural municipality, base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that DTTB has an ICER of 27 192 per QALY gained from a societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the base case ICER of DTTB is Philippine pesos (PHP) 71 839 per QALY gained and PHP 2 064 167 per life saved, and 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations produced similar average estimates. The cost per QALY of DTTB from a healthcare perspective is lower than the WHO recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of 100% of the country’s per-capita gross domestic product.ConclusionsDTTB can be a cost-effective intervention, but its value varies by setting and the conditions of the municipality where it is implemented. By focusing on a narrow set of paediatric outcomes, this study has likely underestimated the health benefits of DTTB. Additional research is needed to understand the full extent of DTTB’s impact on the health of communities in rural and remote areas. Future cost-effectiveness analysis should empirically estimate various parameters and include other health conditions in addition to pneumonia and diarrhoea in children.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Daratumumab to Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Multiple Myeloma

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaohua Cao ◽  
Lina Zhao ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Weiling Cao
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients.Methods: A three-state Markov model was developed from the perspective of US payers to simulate the disease development of patient’s life time for daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) regimens. The primary outputs were total costs, expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results: The base case results showed that adding daratumumab to VMP provided an additional 3.00 Lys or 2.03 QALYs, at a cost of $262,526 per LY or $388,364 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were most sensitive to utility of progression disease of D-VMP regimens, but no matter how these parameters changed, ICERs remained higher than $150,000 per QALY.Conclusion: In the case that the upper limit of willingness to pay threshold was $150,000 per QALY from the perspective of US payers, D-VMP was not a cost-effective regimen compared to VMP.

scholarly journals Cost Recommendations in the Second Edition of Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine: A Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146831876516 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Nyman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

A 2nd edition of Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has now been published by a group of medical decision-making experts known collectively as the 2nd Panel. This is a critical review of the recommendations for how to deal with costs in cost-effectiveness analysis, recommendations that are contained in Chapter 8 of that edition, titled “Estimating Costs and Valuations of Non-Health Benefits in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” authored primarily but not exclusively by Anirban Basu. This review focuses on the correspondence between the costs in the numerator of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and what is measured in the denominator of the ICER by the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Although it raises a number of issues regarding what is actually being measured in the numerator and denominator of the ICER, it primarily challenges the 2nd Panel’s recommendation that the costs of non-health consumption in any additional years of life generated by the intervention in question be accounted for in the numerator, even though no measures of the benefits are included in the QALYs in the denominator. This review is adapted from a review of the entire 2nd edition that was sent to the 2nd Panel steering committee on January 8, 2016.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of Preventive COVID-19 Vaccines by Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabnawaz Khan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Maximum Level ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Intensive Approach ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract This paper merely presents the dynamic boost of the COVID-19 vaccines. The intensive approach is indicating how the effective COVID-19 vaccine promotes and distributes into various official channels. It enables the exclusive authority to devise a possible way to reduce the economic cost of COVID-19 vaccines and facilitate to a maximum level. The Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) method approached with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The key findings are revealing the length of life improves the quality of life of the middle family. The results of QALYs show that Utility Value (UV) by health and the value of statistics in countries in the term of coexistent causation of vaccines. The Pfizer (BNT162b2) and Moderna (mRNA-1273) have instantly created favorable and significant effects probably on many patients, comparatively SARS-CoV-2, AstraZeneca (AZD1222), Russia’s Sputnik (AstraZeneca), and Sinopharm Sinovac Biotech. The opportunity cost provides a valuable benefit in the future.

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 Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
César Augusto Guevara-Cuellar ◽  
María Paula Rengifo-Mosquera ◽  
Elizabeth Parody-Rúa
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

Abstract Background Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer’s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. Conclusions LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer’s perspective in the Colombian health system.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document