Abstract 19: Cost-effectiveness of the Stepwise Approach to Diabetes Prevention in India

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 141 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Duygu Islek ◽  
Mary Beth Weber ◽  
Ranjit Mohan Anjana ◽  
Viswanathan Mohan ◽  
Lisa R Staimez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Lifestyle Modification ◽  
Medical Costs ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Stepwise Approach ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Prevention Approach

Introduction: Expert guidelines recommend a stepwise approach (lifestyle modification followed by addition of metformin in those not meeting goals) in high-risk people to delay progression to diabetes. However, there is scant evidence on the cost-effectiveness of implementing stepwise diabetes prevention. We estimated the 3-year within trial cost-effectiveness of a stepwise diabetes prevention approach in the Diabetes Community Lifestyle Improvement Program (D-CLIP) study in Chennai, India. Hypothesis: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a stepwise diabetes prevention approach in India. Methods: The D-CLIP study was a randomized, controlled, translation trial in 578 overweight/obese Asian Indian adults with isolated impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and/or isolated impaired fasting glucose (IFG), comparing a 6-month lifestyle modification curriculum and stepwise addition of metformin vs. standard lifestyle advice. We assessed direct medical costs including costs to deliver the intervention, general health care utilization, and direct non-medical costs. We also calculated costs for screening which included identifying and recruiting eligible individuals with IGT and/or IFG. Health effects were measured as absolute reductions in cumulative diabetes risk and in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Generalized linear regressions models adjusted for age, sex and baseline levels were fitted to estimate incremental costs and health effects. Bootstrapping was applied to describe the uncertainty around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Results: Over 3 years, the intervention resulted in incremental direct medical costs of 211 USD; incremental direct non-medical costs of 34 USD, an absolute diabetes risk reduction of 10.2%, and incremental QALYs gained of 0.098 per person. The absolute diabetes risk reduction in people with IFG was 6.4%, with IGT was 9% and with both IFG and IGT was 8.1%. ICERs from a multi-payer perspective (including the screening costs) averaged 4,275 USD per diabetes case prevented/delayed. That figure was 5,220 USD in people with IFG, 2,627 USD with IGT and 3,312 USD with both IFG and IGT. ICERs from a multi-payer perspective (including the screening costs) averaged 4,472 USD per QALY gained. That figure was 4,589 USD in people with IFG, 4,270 USD with IGT and 4,335 USD with both IFG and IGT. ICERs from a societal perspective were slightly higher. In the sensitivity analysis, with the scenario of a 50% increase/decrease in screening and intervention costs, from a multi-payer perspective, the average of ICERs varied 1,907 to 6,420 USD per diabetes case prevented, from 1,995 to 6,715 USD per QALY gained. Conclusions: In conclusion, a stepwise approach for diabetes prevention is likely to be cost-effective over a three-year time horizon.

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 Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Claxton ◽  
Steve Martin ◽  
Marta Soares ◽  
Nigel Rice ◽  
Eldon Spackman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
The Other ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Best Estimate ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

BackgroundCost-effectiveness analysis involves the comparison of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new technology, which is more costly than existing alternatives, with the cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates whether or not the health expected to be gained from its use exceeds the health expected to be lost elsewhere as other health-care activities are displaced. The threshold therefore represents the additional cost that has to be imposed on the system to forgo 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of health through displacement. There are no empirical estimates of the cost-effectiveness threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Objectives(1) To provide a conceptual framework to define the cost-effectiveness threshold and to provide the basis for its empirical estimation. (2) Using programme budgeting data for the English NHS, to estimate the relationship between changes in overall NHS expenditure and changes in mortality. (3) To extend this mortality measure of the health effects of a change in expenditure to life-years and to QALYs by estimating the quality-of-life (QoL) associated with effects on years of life and the additional direct impact on QoL itself. (4) To present the best estimate of the cost-effectiveness threshold for policy purposes.MethodsEarlier econometric analysis estimated the relationship between differences in primary care trust (PCT) spending, across programme budget categories (PBCs), and associated disease-specific mortality. This research is extended in several ways including estimating the impact of marginal increases or decreases in overall NHS expenditure on spending in each of the 23 PBCs. Further stages of work link the econometrics to broader health effects in terms of QALYs.ResultsThe most relevant ‘central’ threshold is estimated to be £12,936 per QALY (2008 expenditure, 2008–10 mortality). Uncertainty analysis indicates that the probability that the threshold is < £20,000 per QALY is 0.89 and the probability that it is < £30,000 per QALY is 0.97. Additional ‘structural’ uncertainty suggests, on balance, that the central or best estimate is, if anything, likely to be an overestimate. The health effects of changes in expenditure are greater when PCTs are under more financial pressure and are more likely to be disinvesting than investing. This indicates that the central estimate of the threshold is likely to be an overestimate for all technologies which impose net costs on the NHS and the appropriate threshold to apply should be lower for technologies which have a greater impact on NHS costs.LimitationsThe central estimate is based on identifying a preferred analysis at each stage based on the analysis that made the best use of available information, whether or not the assumptions required appeared more reasonable than the other alternatives available, and which provided a more complete picture of the likely health effects of a change in expenditure. However, the limitation of currently available data means that there is substantial uncertainty associated with the estimate of the overall threshold.ConclusionsThe methods go some way to providing an empirical estimate of the scale of opportunity costs the NHS faces when considering whether or not the health benefits associated with new technologies are greater than the health that is likely to be lost elsewhere in the NHS. Priorities for future research include estimating the threshold for subsequent waves of expenditure and outcome data, for example by utilising expenditure and outcomes available at the level of Clinical Commissioning Groups as well as additional data collected on QoL and updated estimates of incidence (by age and gender) and duration of disease. Nonetheless, the study also starts to make the other NHS patients, who ultimately bear the opportunity costs of such decisions, less abstract and more ‘known’ in social decisions.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research-Medical Research Council Methodology Research Programme.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for previously untreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the USA

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e031019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Ye Peng ◽  
Fang Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesEvaluating the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus standard chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.DesignA Markov model was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Health outcomes were estimated in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost information was from Medicare in 2018. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of uncertainty and assumptions on the results.SettingThe US payer perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical US cohort of patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC without EGFR or ALK mutations.InterventionsPembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy.Primary outcome measuresCosts, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy expressed as cost per QALY gained compared with chemotherapyResultsThe base case analysis demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.78 QALYs at incremental cost of $151 409, resulting in an ICER of $194 372/QALY. ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was >$149 680/QALY in all of our univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPembrolizumab in addition to chemotherapy provides modest incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY for the treatment of previously untreated metastatic NSCLC.

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 The Cost-Effectiveness of Duloxetine in Chronic Low Back Pain: A US Private Payer Perspective—Author Response to Letter to the Editor

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1173-1174
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Wielage ◽  
Megha Bansal ◽  
J. Scott Andrews ◽  
Madelaine M. Wohlreich ◽  
Robert W. Klein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Author Response ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Private Payer

scholarly journals Sex Differences in Diabetes Risk and the Effect of Intensive Lifestyle Modification in the Diabetes Prevention Program

Diabetes Care ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 1416-1421 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Perreault ◽  
Y. Ma ◽  
S. Dagogo-Jack ◽  
E. Horton ◽  
D. Marrero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Prevention Program ◽  
Diabetes Prevention ◽  
Lifestyle Modification ◽  
Diabetes Prevention Program ◽  
Diabetes Risk

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Duloxetine in Chronic Low Back Pain: A US Private Payer Perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Wielage ◽  
Megha Bansal ◽  
J. Scott Andrews ◽  
Madelaine M. Wohlreich ◽  
Robert W. Klein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Private Payer

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