scholarly journals The Study of Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Who Developed Ischemic Stroke

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Neda Jaberi ◽  
Zahra Kavosi ◽  
Etrat Hooshmandi ◽  
Nasrin Moradi ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Intermediate Outcomes ◽  
The Social ◽  
The One ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rivaroxaban is a new anticoagulant providing benefits for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin in patients with AF. Method. This economic evaluation study was conducted among 144 selected nonrandomly patients who were treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin and suffered from AF leading to stroke, in the stroke ward of Shiraz Nemazee Hospital in 2019. The final and clinical (intermediate) outcomes were QALYs and no bleeding and prevention of ischemic stroke, respectively. The study was performed from the social perspective, and a deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the effects of uncertainty. The analysis of the collected data was carried out using SPSS18 and TreeAge software. Results. Patients who received rivaroxaban had lower costs ($ 25275 vs. $ 26554) and higher QALYs (0.5 vs. 0.33) compared to those taking warfarin. Bleeding and stroke occurred in (9 vs. 40) and (1 vs. 3) patients in the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups, respectively, and there was a significant decrease in the incidence of bleeding in the rivaroxaban group (81.9% vs 44.4%). Thus, rivaroxaban in all the outcomes was cheaper and more effective than warfarin. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusions. Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, rivaroxaban is more cost-effective and can be a dominant alternative. Therefore, it is suggested to use rivaroxaban as the first priority in AF patients because rivaroxaban reduces costs and increases clinical outcomes compared with warfarin.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Vs. Vitamin K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Evidence in a Real-World Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Wu ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Zhi-Chun Gu
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Cost

Background: In the clinical setting, the economic benefits of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. This study aimed to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; warfarin) in preventing stroke among AF patients aged >75 years in real-world practice.Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year span was constructed to estimate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes among AF patients aged >75 years treated with DOACs and warfarin. The study was populated with a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 AF patients aged >75 years. Probabilities of clinical outcomes were obtained from the pooled observational studies (OSs), comparing DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) with VKAs. Other model inputs, including the utilities and the costs, were all estimated from public sources and the published literature. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QAYLs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for each treatment strategy. Subgroup analyses of individual DOACs and the scenario analysis were performed. Uncertainty was evaluated by deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).Results: Compared to warfarin, DOACs were associated with a gain of 0.36 QALY at an additional cost of $15,234.65, resulting in an ICER of $42,318.47 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was sensitive to the cost of DOACs. Direct oral anticoagulants also shifted from dominating to dominated status When their annual costs of DOACs were over $3,802.84 or the risk ratio of death compared to warfarin was over 1.077%/year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) suggested that DOACs had a 53.83 and 90.7% probability of being cost-effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50,000 and $100,000, respectively. Among all the four individual DOACs, edoxaban treatment was revealed as the preferred treatment strategy for the AF patients aged over 75 years by yielding the most significant health gain with the relatively low total cost.Conclusions: Despite the high risk for major bleeding in elderly patients with AF, DOACs are more cost-effective treatment options than warfarin in real-world practice. Edoxaban was the preferred treatment strategy among four kinds of DOACs for AF patients aged over 75 years. Furthermore, beyond their safety profiles, the treatment benefits of DOACs assumed greater relevance and importance in older adults.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic analysis based on a randomised, open-label, phase III trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e038867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenxiu Xin ◽  
Haiying Ding ◽  
Qilu Fang ◽  
Xiaowei Zheng ◽  
Yinghui Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Platinum Resistant ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPembrolizumab was recently demonstrated to have survival benefit in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/mHNSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in China remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis analysis aimed to describe the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care (SOC) therapy in r/mHNSCC in China.DesignA Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab with SOC in platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were collected from the KEYNOTE-040 trial, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Cost data were acquired for the payer’s perspective in China. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties surrounding model parameters.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsThe total mean cost of pembrolizumab and SOC was US$45 861 and US$41 950, respectively. As for effectiveness, pembrolizumab yielded 0.31 QALYs compared with 0.25 QALYs for SOC therapy. The ICER for pembrolizumab versus SOC was US$65 186/QALY, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of US$28 130/QALY in China. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that utility values for progressive state, probability from stable to progressive in the SOC group, as well as cost of pembrolizumab were the three most influential variables on ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that standard therapy was more likely to be cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab at a WTP value of US$28 130/QALY. Results were robust across both univariate analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsPembrolizumab is not likely to be a cost-effective strategy compared with SOC therapy in patients with platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC in China.Trial registration numberNCT02252042; Post-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

scholarly journals Addition of Flucytosine to Fluconazole for the Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis in Africa: A Multicountry Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinevimbo Shiri ◽  
Angela Loyse ◽  
Lawrence Mwenge ◽  
Tao Chen ◽  
Shabir Lakhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cryptococcal Meningitis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Costing Analysis ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background Mortality from cryptococcal meningitis remains very high in Africa. In the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa (ACTA) trial, 2 weeks of fluconazole (FLU) plus flucytosine (5FC) was as effective and less costly than 2 weeks of amphotericin-based regimens. However, many African settings treat with FLU monotherapy, and the cost-effectiveness of adding 5FC to FLU is uncertain. Methods The effectiveness and costs of FLU+5FC were taken from ACTA, which included a costing analysis at the Zambian site. The effectiveness of FLU was derived from cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients, managed in respects other than drug therapy, as were participants in ACTA. FLU costs were derived from costs of FLU+5FC in ACTA, by subtracting 5FC drug and monitoring costs. The cost-effectiveness of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed uncertainties and a bivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the impact of varying mortality and 5FC drug costs on the ICER. Results The mean costs per patient were US $847 (95% confidence interval [CI] $776–927) for FLU+5FC, and US $628 (95% CI $557–709) for FLU. The 10-week mortality rate was 35.1% (95% CI 28.9–41.7%) with FLU+5FC and 53.8% (95% CI 43.1–64.1%) with FLU. At the current 5FC price of US $1.30 per 500 mg tablet, the ICER of 5FC+FLU versus FLU alone was US $65 (95% CI $28–208) per life-year saved. Reducing the 5FC cost to between US $0.80 and US $0.40 per 500 mg resulted in an ICER between US $44 and US $28 per life-year saved. Conclusions The addition of 5FC to FLU is cost-effective for cryptococcal meningitis treatment in Africa and, if made available widely, could substantially reduce mortality rates among human immunodeficiency virus–infected persons in Africa.

Abstract TP286: A Literature Review of Cost-effectiveness of Intravenous Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Treating Acute Ischemic Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guijing Wang ◽  
Heesoo Joo ◽  
Mary G George
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Tissue Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Tissue Plasminogen ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Introduction: Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV rtPA) is recommended treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients, but the cost-effectiveness of IV rtPA within different time windows after the onset of acute ischemic stroke is not well reviewed. Objectives: We conducted a literature review of the cost-effectiveness studies about IV rtPA. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EconLit, with the key words stroke, cost, economic benefit, saving, cost-effectiveness, tissue plasminogen activator, and rtPA. The review is limited to original research articles published during 1995–2014 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Results: We found 15 studies meeting our criteria for this review. Nine of them were cost-effectiveness studies of IV rtPA treatment within 0-3 hours after stroke onset, 2 studies within 3-4.5 hours, 3 studies within 0-4.5 hours, and 1 study within 0-6 hours. IV rtPA is a cost-saving or a cost-effectiveness strategy from most of the study results. Only one study showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IV rtPA within one year was marginally above $50,000 per QALY threshold. IV rtPA within 0-3 hours after stroke led to cost savings for lifetime or 30 years, and IV rtPA within 3-4.5 hours after stroke increased costs but still was cost-effective. Conclusions: The literature generally showed that intravenous IV rtPA was a dominant or a cost-effective strategy compared to traditional treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients without IV rtPA. The findings from the literature lacked generalizability because of limited data and various assumptions.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

scholarly journals Systematic review of health economic studies in cranial neurosurgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. E2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Hyung A. Ryu ◽  
Michael M. H. Yang ◽  
Sandeep Muram ◽  
W. Bradley Jacobs ◽  
Steven Casha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVEAs the cost of health care continues to increase, there is a growing emphasis on evaluating the relative economic value of treatment options to guide resource allocation. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of cranial neurosurgery procedures.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, focusing on themes of economic evaluation and cranial neurosurgery following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were publications of cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis between 1995 and 2017 in which health utility outcomes in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were used. Three independent reviewers conducted the study appraisal, data abstraction, and quality assessment, with differences resolved by consensus discussion.RESULTSIn total, 3485 citations were reviewed, with 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of those, 34 studies were published in the last 5 years. The most common subspecialty focus was cerebrovascular (32%), followed by neurooncology (26%) and functional neurosurgery (24%). Twenty-eight (53%) studies, using a willingness to pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY or LY, found a specific surgical treatment to be cost-effective. In addition, there were 11 (21%) studies that found a specific surgical option to be economically dominant (both cost saving and having superior outcome), including endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, epilepsy surgery for drug-refractory epilepsy, and endoscopic pituitary tumor resection.CONCLUSIONSThere is an increasing number of cost-effectiveness studies in cranial neurosurgery, especially within the last 5 years. Although there are numerous procedures, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, that have been conclusively proven to be cost-effective, there remain promising interventions in current practice that have yet to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of mobile health-based integrated care for atrial fibrillation: Model development and data analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueyan Luo ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Quan Yuan ◽  
Han Lai ◽  
Chunji Huang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mhealth Technology

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mhealth) technology is increasingly used in disease management. Using mhealth tools to integrate and streamline care was found to improve atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical and health economic outcomes of mhealth-based integrated care for AF from the perspective of a public healthcare provider in China. METHODS A Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of mhealth-based care and usual care in a hypothetical cohort of AF patients in China. The time horizon was 30 years with monthly cycles. Model outcomes measured were direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, mhealth-based care gained higher QALYs of 0.0818 with an incurred cost of USD1,778. Using USD33,438 per QALY (three times gross domestic product) as the willingness-to-pay threshold, mhealth-based care was cost-effective, with an ICER of USD21,739 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis found compliance to mhealth-based care had the greatest impact on the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mhealth-based care was accepted as cost-effective in 80.91% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS This study suggested that the use of mhealth technology in streamlining and integrating care for AF patients was cost-effective in China.

Is Banning Texturized Implants to Prevent Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma a Rational Decision? A Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (7) ◽  
pp. 721-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan V Danilla ◽  
Rocio P Jara ◽  
Felipe Miranda ◽  
Francisco Bencina ◽  
Marcela Aguirre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Breast Implant ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Large Cell ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Large Cell Lymphoma ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an emergent disease that threatens patients with texturized breast implants. Major concerns about the safety of these implants are leading to global changes to restrict the utilization of this product. The principal alternative is to perform breast augmentation utilizing smooth implants, given the lack of association with BIA-ALCL. The implications and costs of this intervention are unknown. Objectives The authors of this study determined the cost-effectiveness of smooth implants compared with texturized implants for breast augmentation surgery. Methods A tree decision model was utilized to analyze the cost-effectiveness. Model input parameters were derived from published sources. The capsular contracture (CC) rate was calculated from a meta-analysis. Effectiveness measures were life years, avoided BIA-ALCL, avoided deaths, and avoided reoperations. A sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model. Results For avoided BIA-ALCL, the incremental cost was $18,562,003 for smooth implants over texturized implants. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was negative for life years, and avoided death and avoided reoperations were negative. The sensitivity analysis revealed that to avoid 1 case of BIA-ALCL, the utilization of smooth implants would be cost-effective for a risk of developing BIA-ALCL equal to or greater than 1:196, and there is a probability of CC with smooth implants equal to or less than 0.096. Conclusions The utilization of smooth implants to prevent BIA-ALCL is not cost-effective. Banning texturized implants to prevent BIA-ALCL may involve additional consequences, which should be considered in light of higher CC rates and more reoperations associated with smooth implants than with texturized implants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document