scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy strategies in Guangzhou city, southern China

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e039653
Author(s):  
Fei Yang ◽  
Meixia Liao ◽  
Pusheng Wang ◽  
Yongguang Liu
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapy ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Southern China ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Guangzhou City ◽  
Time Horizons ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesThis study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of three renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities as well as proposed changes of scheduled policies in RRT composition in Guangzhou city.MethodsFrom a payer perspective, we designed Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analyses to compare the cost-effectiveness of three RRT modalities and four different scheduled policies to RRT modalities in Guangzhou over three time horizons (5, 10 and 15 years). The current situation (scenario 1: haemodialysis (HD), 73%; peritoneal dialysis (PD), 14%; kidney transplantation (TX), 13%) was compared with three different scenarios: an increased proportion of incident RRT patients on PD (scenario 2: HD, 47%; PD, 40%; TX, 13%); on TX (scenario 3: HD, 52%; PD, 14%; TX, 34%); on both PD and TX (Scenario 4: HD, 26%; PD, 40%; TX, 34%).ResultsOver 5-year time horizon, HD was dominated by PD. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$44 300, TX was cost-effective compared with PD with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$35 518 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The scenario 2 held a dominant position over the scenario 1, with a net saving of US$ 5.92 million and an additional gain of 6.24 QALYs. The scenarios 3 and 4 were cost-effective compared with scenario 1 at a WTP threshold of US$44 300. The above results were consistent across the three time horizons.ConclusionsTX is the most cost-effective RRT modality, followed in order by PD and HD. The strategy with an increased proportion of incident patients on PD and TX is cost-effective compared with the current practice pattern at the given WTP threshold. The planning for RRT service delivery should incorporate efforts to increase the utilisation of PD and TX in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for cluster B personality disorders

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Peng ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectiveThe use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective.Materials and MethodsA Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis.ResultsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY.ConclusionsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

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

Immunotherapy ◽  
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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: An economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552097534
Author(s):  
Nicholas R Latimer ◽  
Arjun Bhadhuri ◽  
Abu O Alshreef ◽  
Rebecca Palmer ◽  
Elizabeth Cross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Word Finding ◽  
The Cost

Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for people with aphasia post-stroke. Design: Cost-effectiveness modelling over a life-time period, taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social service perspective. Setting: Based on the Big CACTUS randomised controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. Participants: Big CACTUS included 278 people with long-standing aphasia post-stroke. Interventions: Computerised word finding therapy plus usual care; usual care alone; usual care plus attention control. Main measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, comparing the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for each intervention. Credible intervals (CrI) for costs and QALYs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness, were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Subgroup and scenario analyses investigated cost-effectiveness in different subsets of the population, and the sensitivity of results to key model inputs. Results: Adding computerised word finding therapy to usual care had an ICER of £42,686 per QALY gained compared with usual care alone (incremental QALY gain: 0.02 per patient (95% CrI: −0.05 to 0.10); incremental costs: £732.73 per patient (95% CrI: £674.23 to £798.05)). ICERs for subgroups with mild or moderate word finding difficulties were £22,371 and £21,262 per QALY gained respectively. Conclusion: Computerised word finding therapy represents a low cost add-on to usual care, but QALY gains and estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain. Computerised therapy is more likely to be cost-effective for people with mild or moderate, as opposed to severe, word finding difficulties.

Cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus erlotinib plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
George Dranitsaris ◽  
Victoria Manax
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Phase ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

353 Background: In a recent phase III trial nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) + gemcitabine (nab-P/G) demonstrated a 1.8 month, or 27%, improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.72, P < 0.001) vs gemcitabine (G) in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). nab-P/G had higher 1 year OS (35% vs 22%) and improved PFS by 1.8 months (HR = 0.69, P < 0.01). nab-P/G is the first taxane based therapy to show a significant OS improvement in a phase III mPC trial. Erlotinib + gemcitabine (E/G) has also demonstrated activity in mPC, with a 0.3 month OS benefit vs G (HR = 0.82, P = 0.04), a 1 year OS of 23% vs 17%, and 0.2 months PFS benefit (HR = 0.77, P = 0.004) vs G. A cost-effectiveness analysis measuring the cost per life year (LY) gained for nab-P/G and E/G was conducted from the US payer perspective. Methods: Costs and clinical outcomes were evaluated fromnab-P/G vs G and E/G vs G trials of mPC. Health care resource use and the management of grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were collected from a large multisite US oncology clinic, expert opinion, and literature (2012 US dollars). Drug cost per cycle was multiplied by the median cycles delivered from the trials for nab-P/G and E/G. Results: Duration of therapy was 4 months for nab-P/G vs 3.9 months for E/G. Total cost for nab-P/G was $24,984 vs $23,044 for E/G, including drug, administration and AE management. AE costs were similar between the two therapies (Table). Differences of > 5% were noted in neutropenia (rates: nab-P/G = 33%; E/G = 24%), neuropathy (nab-P/G = 17%; E/G = 1%), and rash (nab-P/G = 0%; E/G = 6%). The net survival advantage for nab-P/G vs E/G was 1.5 incremental life months gained. Nab-P/G was cost-effective relative to E/G, at a cost of $15,522 per incremental life year gained. Conclusions: nab-P/G is a cost-effective alternative to E/G in mPC, bringing more months of OS at < $16,000 cost per incremental life year gained. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy Program

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Villa ◽  
Lucía Fernández–Ortiz ◽  
Jesús Cuervo ◽  
Pablo Rebollo ◽  
Rafael Selgas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapy ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Markov Chain Model ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chain Model ◽  
Therapy Program ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

♦BackgroundWe undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) program for end-stage renal disease patients from a societal perspective. The current Spanish situation was compared with several hypothetical scenarios.♦MethodsA Markov chain model was used as a foundation for simulations of the Spanish RRT program in three temporal horizons (5, 10, and 15 years). The current situation (scenario 1) was compared with three different scenarios: increased proportion of overall scheduled (planned) incident patients (scenario 2); constant proportion of overall scheduled incident patients, but increased proportion of scheduled incident patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), resulting in a lower proportion of scheduled incident patients on hemodialysis (HD) (scenario 3); and increased overall proportion of scheduled incident patients together with increased scheduled incidence of patients on PD (scenario 4).♦ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of scenarios 2, 3, and 4, when compared with scenario 1, were estimated to be, respectively, -€83 150, -€354 977, and -€235 886 per incremental quality-adjusted life year (ΔQALY), evidencing both moderate cost savings and slight effectiveness gains. The net health benefits that would accrue to society were estimated to be, respectively, 0.0045, 0.0211, and 0.0219 ΔQALYs considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35 000/ΔQALY.♦ConclusionsScenario 1, the current Spanish situation, was dominated by all the proposed scenarios. Interestingly, scenarios 3 and 4 showed the best results in terms of cost-effectiveness. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, an increase in the overall scheduled incidence of RRT, and particularly that of PD, should be promoted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

Cephalalgia ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1473-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
JS Brown ◽  
G Papadopoulos ◽  
PJ Neumann ◽  
M Price ◽  
M Friedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Utility ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Migraine Frequency ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment in the UK. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency, treatment discontinuation and response, preventive and acute medical cost per attack [2005 GBP (£)] and gain in health utility. Outcomes included monthly migraines averted, acute and preventive treatment costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Topiramate was associated with 1.8 fewer monthly migraines and a QALY gain of 0.0384. The incremental cost of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment was about £10 per migraine averted and £5700 per QALY. Results are sensitive to baseline monthly migraine frequency, triptan use rate and the gain in utility. Incorporating savings from reduced work loss (about £36 per month) suggests that topiramate would be cost saving compared with no preventive treatment. This analysis suggests that topiramate is a cost-effective treatment for migraine prevention compared with no preventive treatment.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258605
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost

Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document