Cost Effectiveness of Infant Vaccination for Rotavirus in Canada

INTRODUCTION: Rotavirus is the main cause of gastroenteritis in Canadian children younger than five years of age, resulting in significant morbidity and cost. The present study provides evidence on the cost effectiveness of two alternative rotavirus vaccinations (RotaTeq [Merck Frosst Canada Ltd, Canada] and Rotarix [GlaxoSmithKline, Canada]) available in Canada.METHODS: Analysis was conducted through a Markov model that followed a cohort of children from birth to five years of age. Analysis used pertinent data on the natural history of rotavirus and the effects of vaccination. Estimates of heath care costs for children requiring hospitalizations and emergency department visits were derived from the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program, Active (IMPACT) surveillance, emergency department studies, as well as other Canadian studies. The model estimated the effect of vaccination on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained from the health care system perspective was $122,000 for RotaTeq and $108,000 for Rotarix. From the societal perspective, both vaccination strategies were dominant – both cost saving and more effective. The cost-effectiveness of vaccination is dependent on the mode of administration, the perspective adopted and the cost of the vaccine.CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, a universal vaccination program against rotavirus will be both cost saving and more effective than no vaccination. Becasue the majority of rotavirus infections do not require emergency department visits or hospital admission, from a health care system perspective, a program would not be considered cost effective.

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness and Value-Based Pricing of Aducanumab for Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease

Neurology ◽

10.1212/wnl.0000000000013314 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000013314

Author(s):

Melanie D. Whittington ◽

Jonathan D. Campbell ◽

David Rind ◽

Noemi Fluetsch ◽

Grace A. Lin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Health Care System ◽

Societal Perspective ◽

List Price ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

System Perspective ◽

Care System

Introduction:Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous FDA Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. The objective of this analysis was to estimate its cost-effectiveness.Methods:We developed a Markov model to compare aducanumab in addition to supportive care to supportive care alone over a lifetime horizon. Results were presented from both the health system and modified societal perspective. The model tracked the severity of disease and the care setting. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, and a threshold analysis was conducted to estimate at what price aducanumab would meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.Results:Using estimates of effectiveness based on pooling of data from both pivotal trials, patients treated with aducanumab spent four more months in earlier stages of AD. Over the lifetime time horizon, treating a patient with aducanumab results in 0.154 more QALYs gained per patient and 0.201 evLYGs per patient from the health care system perspective, with additional costs of approximately $204,000 per patient. The incremental outcomes were similar for the modified societal perspective. At the list price of $56,000 per year, the cost-effectiveness ranged from $1.02 million per evLYG to $1.33 million per QALY gained from the health care system perspective; and from $938,000 per evLYG to $1.27 million per QALY gained in the modified societal perspective. The annual price to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds ranged from $2,950 to $8,360, which represents a discount of 85-95% off from the annual launch price set by the manufacturer. Using estimates of effectiveness based only on the trial that suggested a benefit, the mean incremental cost was greater than $400,000 per QALY gained.Discussion:Patients treated with aducanumab received minimal improvements in health outcomes at considerable cost. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that far exceeded commonly used value thresholds, even under optimistic treatment effectiveness assumptions. These findings are subject to the substantial uncertainty regarding whether aducanumab provides any true net health benefit, but evidence available currently suggests that an annual price of aducanumab of $56,000 is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: health care system and societal perspectives

SLEEP ◽

10.1093/sleep/zsz181 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 (12) ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jared Streatfeild ◽

David Hillman ◽

Robert Adams ◽

Scott Mitchell ◽

Lynne Pezzullo

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Health System ◽

Health Care System ◽

Airway Pressure ◽

Positive Airway Pressure ◽

Cpap Therapy ◽

System Perspective ◽

Obstructive Sleep ◽

Care System

Abstract Study Objectives To determine cost-effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in Australia for 2017–2018 to facilitate public health decision-making. Methods Analysis was undertaken of direct per-person costs of CPAP therapy (according to 5-year care pathways), health system and other costs of OSA and its comorbidities averted by CPAP treatment (5-year adherence rate 56.7%) and incremental benefit of therapy (in terms of disability-adjusted life years [DALYs] averted) to determine cost-effectiveness of CPAP. This was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (= dollars per DALY averted). Direct costs of CPAP were estimated from government reimbursements for services and advertised equipment costs. Costs averted were calculated from both the health care system perspective (health system costs only) and societal perspective (health system plus other financial costs including informal care, productivity losses, nonmedical accident costs, deadweight taxation and welfare losses). These estimates of costs (expressed in US dollars) and DALYs averted were based on our recent analyses of costs of untreated OSA. Results From the health care system perspective, estimated cost of CPAP therapy to treat OSA was $12 495 per DALY averted while from a societal perspective the effect was dominant (−$10 688 per DALY averted) meaning it costs more not to treat the problem than to treat it. Conclusions These estimates suggest substantial community investment in measures to more systematically identify and treat OSA is justified. Apart from potential health and well-being benefits, it is financially prudent to do so.

Download Full-text

P1546UK ANNUAL THERAPY COST OF DIALYSIS WITH THE QUANTA SC+ PERSONAL HAEMODIALYSIS SYSTEM

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation ◽

10.1093/ndt/gfaa142.p1546 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽

Author(s):

Thomas Ferguson ◽

Paul Komenda ◽

Gerard Harper ◽

John Milad

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Emergency Department ◽

Health Care System ◽

Self Care ◽

Emergency Department Visits ◽

Weekend Effect ◽

Care At Home ◽

The Uk ◽

Care System ◽

At Home

Abstract Background and Aims The number of patients receiving dialysis is increasing in the United Kingdom, costing the National Health Service (NHS) over 500 million GBP annually. New personal haemodialysis systems are being developed, such as the Quanta SC+, that are smaller and simpler to use by patients while providing the clearances of conventional systems. Increasing uptake of lower intensity assistance and full self-care dialysis may provide economic benefits to the public health payer. In addition, promotion of every other day dialysis (3.5x weekly) may improve costs to the health system by helping to close the “post-weekend effect” with increased emergency department use and hospitalisations following the long interdialytic gap. As such, we aimed to describe the annual therapy costs of using SC+ in the UK for 3x weekly and 3.5x weekly dialysis regimens, both for self-care haemodialysis provided in-centre and at home in comparison to dialysis provided with conventional machines from the perspective of the health care system. Method Cost minimisation approach. Costs for human resources, equipment, and consumables were sourced from the dialysis machine developer (Quanta Dialysis Technologies). Other costs, such as facility expenses, dialysis-related drugs, avoided emergency department and hospitalisation events, and utilities were taken from a review of the literature. Costs are provided in 2018 GBP. Results Therapy provided as self-care in-centre or full self-care at home were found to have similar costs (£33,721 in-centre versus £33,836 at home for the 3x weekly regimen). Costs increased to £37,238 for self-care in-centre and £35,557 at home for the 3.5x weekly regimen. A comparator cost of £39,416 was established for dialysis provided with conventional machines in-hospital 3x weekly. For each dialysis patient, the health care system is anticipated to save £3,666 in costs associated with excess hospital stays and £2,176 in costs associated with excess emergency department visits. Conclusion In the UK, SC+ offers cost savings when used both for self-care in-centre and full self-care at home in comparison to dialysis provided in the clinic using conventional machines.

Download Full-text