scholarly journals 1-year cost-utility analysis of prostate artery embolization (PAE) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e000071
Author(s):  
Nikisha Patel ◽  
Nathan Yung ◽  
Ganesh Vigneswaran ◽  
Laure de Preux ◽  
Drew Maclean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Artery Embolization ◽  
Prostate Artery Embolization ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo determine whether prostate artery embolization (PAE) is a cost-effective alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the management of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) after 1-year follow-up.Design, setting and main outcome measuresA retrospective cost-utility analysis over a 12-month time period was conducted to compare the two interventions from a National Health Service perspective. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from data collected during the observational UK Register of Prostate Embolisation (UK-ROPE) Study. Costs for both PAE and TURP were derived from University Hospital Southampton, a tertiary referral centre for BPH and the largest contributor to the UK-ROPE. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived from cost and QALY values associated with both interventions to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAE versus TURP. Further sensitivity analyses involved a decision tree model to account for the impact of patient-reported complications on the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.ResultsThe mean patient age for TURP (n=31) and PAE (n=133) was 69 and 65.6 years, respectively. In comparison to TURP, PAE was cheaper due to shorter patient stays and the lack of necessity for an operating theatre. Analysis revealed an ICER of £64 798.10 saved per QALY lost when comparing PAE to TURP after 1-year follow-up.ConclusionOur findings suggest that PAE is initially a cost-effective alternative to TURP for the management of BPH after 1-year follow-up. Due to a higher reintervention rate in the PAE group, this benefit may be lost in subsequent years.Trial registration numberNCT02434575.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial

10.2196/10866 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e10866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. Methods A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). Results When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. Conclusions Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of multimodal pain rehabilitation in primary healthcare

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Eklund ◽  
Britt-Marie Stålnacke ◽  
Gunilla Stenberg ◽  
Paul Enthoven ◽  
Björn Gerdle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Cost

AbstractObjectivesMultimodal rehabilitation programs (MMRPs) have been shown to be both cost-effective and an effective method for managing chronic pain in specialist care. However, while the vast majority of patients are treated in primary healthcare, MMRPs are rarely practiced in these settings. Limited time and resources for everyday activities alongside the complexity of chronic pain makes the management of chronic pain challenging in primary healthcare and the focus is on unimodal treatment. In order to increase the use of MMRPs incentives such as cost savings and improved health status in the patient group are needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MMRPs for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare in two Swedish regions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MMRPs at one-year follow-up in comparison with care as usual for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare in two Swedish regions.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a prospective cohort study comparing the MMRP with the alternative of continuing with care as usual. The health-related quality of life (HRQoL), using EQ5D, and working situation of 234 participants were assessed at baseline and one-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained while the secondary outcome was sickness absence. An extrapolation of costs was performed based on previous long-term studies in order to evaluate the effects of the MMRP over a five-year time period.ResultsThe mean (SD) EQ5D index, which measures HRQoL, increased significantly (p<0.001) from 0.34 (0.32) to 0.44 (0.32) at one-year follow-up. Sickness absence decreased by 15%. The cost-utility analysis showed a cost per QALY gained of 18 704 € at one-year follow-up.ConclusionsThe results indicate that the MMRP significantly improves the HRQoL of the participants and is a cost-effective treatment for patients with chronic pain in primary healthcare when a newly suggested cost-effectiveness threshold of 19 734 € is implemented. The extrapolation indicates that considerable cost savings in terms of reduced loss of production and gained QALYs may be generated if the effects of the MMRP are maintained beyond one-year follow-up. The study demonstrates potential benefits of MMRPs in primary healthcare for both the patient with chronic pain and the society as a whole. The cost-effectiveness of MMRPs in primary healthcare has scarcely been studied and further long-term studies are needed in these settings.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kondo ◽  
Tomoya Tachi ◽  
Takayoshi Sakakibara ◽  
Jun Kato ◽  
Takahito Mizuno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy, consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients.Methods We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine. The cost, probabilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The threshold ICER was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. The robustness of this model was validated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results The calculated ICER was 5,156 USD/QALY, which was below the threshold. Under the set conditions, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% probability that olanzapine was cost-effective. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of olanzapine below 10.78 USD placed the ICER below the threshold. Conclusion Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

Cost-utility analysis on telemonitoring of users with pacemakers: The PONIENTE study

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Lopez-Villegas ◽  
Daniel Catalan-Matamoros ◽  
Emilio Robles-Musso ◽  
Rafael Bautista-Mesa ◽  
Salvador Peiro
Keyword(s):  
Cost Saving ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Significant Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Introduction Few studies have confirmed the cost-saving of telemonitoring of users with pacemakers (PMs). The purpose of this controlled, non-randomised, non-masked clinical trial was to perform an economic assessment of telemonitoring (TM) of users with PMs and check whether TM offers a cost-utility alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital. Methods Eighty-two patients implanted with an internet-based transmission PM were selected to receive either conventional follow-up in hospital ( n = 52) or TM ( n = 30) from their homes. The data were collected during 12 months while patients were being monitored. The economic assessment of the PONIENTE study was performed as per the perspectives of National Health Service (NHS) and patients. A cost-utility analysis was conducted to measure whether the TM of patients with PMs is cost-effective in terms of costs per gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results There was a significant cost-saving for participants in the TM group in comparison with the participants in the conventional follow-up group. From the NHS’s perspective, the patients in the TM group gained 0.09 QALYs more than the patients in the conventional follow-up group over 12 months, with a cost saving of 57.64% (€46.51 versus €109.79, respectively; p < 0.001) per participant per year. In-office visits were reduced by 52.49% in the TM group. The costs related to the patient perspective were lower in the TM group than in the conventional follow-up group (€31.82 versus €73.48, respectively; p < 0.005). The costs per QALY were 61.68% higher in the in-office monitoring group. Discussion The cost-utility analysis performed in the PONIENTE study showed that the TM of users with PMs appears to be a significant cost-effective alternative to conventional follow-up in hospital.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-utility Analysis of Trabecular Micro-bypass Stents (TBS) in Patients With Mild-to-moderate Open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Maria Fea ◽  
Francesco Cattel ◽  
Stefano Gandolfi ◽  
Giorgio Buseghin ◽  
Gianluca Furneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Istent Inject ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8,368.51 vs. €7,134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness (CEAC) analysis showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective. Trial registration: Not applicable

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document