Abstract 202: Cost-effectiveness Of Carotid Stenting In Canada

Stroke ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Almekhlafi ◽  
Fiona Clement ◽  
Michael D Hill
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Carotid Stenting ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Minor Stroke ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Procedural Costs

BACKGROUND To estimate the cost-effectiveness of carotid stenting (CAS) compared to endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients. METHODS A cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health system perspective was performed using a Markov analytic model. Clinical estimates were based on a recent meta-analysis. Procedural costs for CAS and CEA were derived from a local cohort. The costs for hospitalization and rehabilitation for minor and major strokes were based on the Burden of Ischemic Stroke (BURST) study. Utility scores were based on SAPPHIRE trial. A Monte Carlo simulation using a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the model assumptions and uncertainties. RESULTS CAS was more expensive (incremental cost of $6106.84) and had a lower effectiveness (- 0.12 QALYs). The model was sensitive to the risk of annual death. At a threshold odds ratio (OR) of 0.85, CAS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $32,839.04. Using estimates from SAPPHIRE trial, CAS dominated CEA. When estimates from CREST or EVA-3S trials were used, CEA dominated CAS. Only after simultaneously reducing CAS costs and risks of periprocedural and annual minor strokes, CAS had a favorable ICER. This was achieved at a threshold CAS procedural cost of $4350, a threshold OR of periprocedural minor stroke of 1, and a threshold OR of annual minor stroke of 1.15or less; resulting in an ICER of $577.5. The figure shows CAS cost-effectiveness plane. CONCLUSIONS In this analysis, CAS was associated with higher costs and lower effectiveness compared to CEA in symptomatic carotid stenosis patients. The results were driven by the costs of periprocedural major and minor stroke. The costs associated with MI did not impact the results. For CAS to be more effective, it needs to be performed in patients with longer survival, in patients at a high surgical-risk, or at a lower procedural costs plus lower rates of periprocedural and annual minor strokes.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

scholarly journals Periprocedural complications and risk factors after carotid stenting in patients with concomitant coronary artery disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 72-79
Author(s):  
Georgi Goranov ◽  
Petar Nikolov
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Coronary Disease ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Carotid Stenting ◽  
Minor Stroke ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease

Backgrounds and purpose: To analyse the periprocedural CAS complications in patients with concomitant coronary disease. Material and methods: A prospective study analysed the frequency and characteristics of periprocedural complications after CAS in 329 patients, of whom 62.2% had symptomatic carotid stenosis > 50% and 37.8% had asymptomatic > 70%. The mean age was 70.2 (45-88) years, male/female ratio – 253/76. The degree of carotid stenosis was assessed angiographically according to NASCET criteria and was stratified by a newly proposed carotid score in three risk groups. Distal embolic protection was used in all patients. Results: Periprocedural complications were observed in 25/349 CAS interventions: TIA – 4.9%, major stroke – 0.6%, minor stroke – 1.4%, hyperperfusion syndrome – 0.3%. No MI and death were registered. Out of more than 20 factors analysed, previous MI (χ2 = 7,707; p = 0.021) and stroke (χ2 = 9,835, p = 0.043), “slow flow” (χ2 = 3.752; p = 0.001), residual stenosis> 20% (χ2 = 13.752; p = 0.001), radiation time (F = 13.323; p = 0.000), the amount of contrast used (F = 5.297; p = 0.006), contrast- induced OBN (χ2 = 25.845; p = 0.000), females with CKD (χ2 = 8.681; p = 0.013) or with a high carotid score (χ2 = 7.329; p = 0.026) were found to be predictors of complications. Conclusion: CAS is a safe procedure with low risk of MI and death in patients with concomitant coronary disease.

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF LIRAGLUTIDE VERSUS GLIMEPIRIDE AS ADD-ON TO METFORMIN IN TYPE 2 DIABETES PATIENTS IN CHINA

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Gao ◽  
Fei-Li Zhao ◽  
Shu-Chuen Li
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-utility of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), based on the results of clinical trial conducted in Asian population.Methods: The validated UKPDS Outcomes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incidence of diabetes-related complication and cost of complications in patients receiving those regimens. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from an Asian study. China-specific complication costs and utility score were taken from local studies. Patients’ outcomes were modeled for 30 years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for liraglutide compared with glimepiride from the healthcare system perspective. Both future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3 percent. Sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Over a period of 30 years, compared with glimepiride, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy (0.1 year) and quality adjusted life-year (0.168 QALY), and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained versus glimepiride of CNY 25,6871 (DEC 2010, 1 USD = 6.6227 CNY).Conclusions: Long-term projections indicated that liraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy, QALYs, and reduced complication incidences comparing with glimepiride. When the UK cost of liraglutide was discounted by 38 percent, liraglutide would be a cost-effective option in China from the healthcare system perspective using the 3X GDP/capita per QALY as the WTP threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab for the first-line treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in Canada

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17000-e17000
Author(s):  
J. Sambrook ◽  
A. R. Levy ◽  
K. M. Johnston ◽  
N. J. Ricard ◽  
C. Bourgault ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health States

e17000 Background: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is a disfiguring and potentially fatal condition. Cetuximab is a new therapeutic option which has been shown to improve locoregional control (LRC) and reduce mortality in the treatment of locally and regionally advanced disease. Objectives: To estimate the incremental cost-utility of cetuximab plus radiotherapy (CxRT) versus cisplatin plus radiotherapy (CsRT) among platinum eligible patients and versus RT alone in platinum ineligible patients in Canada. Methods: A lifetime transition model was developed with four health states: 1) acute treatment phase; 2) LRC; 3) disease progression and 4) death. Adverse events were accounted for in the first two states. Efficacy of treatment (LRC and overall survival) was obtained from the literature. Based on network meta-analyses, CsRT and CxRT were assumed to have equal efficacy. Resource use was obtained from published literature and clinical expert opinion. The perspective adopted was that of a provincial ministry of health or cancer agency. Utilities were obtained from a previous study of United Kingdom oncology nurses. Costs (2008 CDN$) and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses performed to assess robustness of results. A priori sub-group analyses were carried out by baseline Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS). Results: Among all patients (KPS 60–100), the ICERs comparing CxRT to RT were $19,740/QALY (95% CI: $11,122 to $695,295) among platinum ineligible patients and for CxRT vs. CsRT, $99,147/QALY (95% CI: $75,998 to $148,951) among platinum eligible patients. ICERs decreased with increasing KPS scores. At a willingness to pay of $50,000 among platinum-ineligible patients and $100,000 among platinum-eligible patients, the likelihood that CxRT is cost-effective is 90% and 45% respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicated that time horizon and assumptions about CsRT effectiveness had the largest impact on results. Conclusion: Cetuximab is an economically attractive option for SCCHN patients. [Table: see text]

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) versus tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TafaL) in ASCT-transplant ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): Economic evaluation including novel metrics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19535-e19535
Author(s):  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

Use of the Ring Wound Protector in Open Appendectomy: A Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1976
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Tree ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Wound Protector

Objective: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of ring wound protector (RWP) used in open appendectomy. Materials and Methods: The present study was a decision-tree-based analysis. Model inputs, including costs, utilities, and probabilities of surgical site infection (SSI), were retrieved from the previous studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented the cost of one additional quality-adjusted life day (QALD). This ratio was calculated by dividing the incremental cost [Thai Baht (THB)] by the incremental QALD. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying each input parameter to see how ICER change. Monte-Carlo simulation with 5,000 replications was used to estimate probabilistic ICER and construct the acceptability curve, demonstrating how the probability of being cost-effective changed when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was shifted. Results: The deterministic ICER of 64,630.78 THB/QALD did not favor RWP use compared with the WTP threshold of 10,000 THB/QALD. However, if the threshold was shifted to 100,000 THB/QALD, it would yield approximately 75% probability of being cost-effective from RWP. Threshold analysis indicated that RWP should cost 281, 301, and 661 THB to be cost-effective at the threshold of 500, 1,000, and 10,000 THB/QALD, respectively. Conclusion: Routine RWP use might not be cost-effective when QALD is the outcome of interest. Based on the results from the present study, policy-makers could be informed that the adoption of this health technology might not be suitable. Keywords: Ring wound protector; Appendectomy; Cost-utility analysis; Decision tree model

Economic evaluation of six and 12 month (m) treatment with isatuximab and carfilzomib and dexamethasone (IKd) versus daratumumab and carfilzomib and dexamethasone (DKd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20010-e20010
Author(s):  
Neda AlRawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Medication Administration ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Life Years

e20010 Background: Isatuximab and daratumumab target the CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on MM cells. IKd and DKd regimens have shown reductions of HR=0.53 (95%CI 0.32-0.89) and HR=0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.85) resp. in progression or death risk compared to Kd in RRMM. In the absence of a direct IKd vs DKd trial, we performed an indirect treatment comparison on progression free survival (PFS) to enable cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods: A 3-state (pre-progression, progression, death) partitioned survival model was specified. NMA-adjusted transition probabilities were estimated from fitted exponential functions (time horizon of 6 and 12 m; cycle length 28 days). Inputs included the Wholesale Acquisition Cost of IKd, DKd, and premedications; cost of medication administration; and cost of adverse event management. Utility inputs for pre-progression (0.65) and progression (0.61) were per literature. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3.5%/y. A payer perspective was adopted. Life years (LY), quality adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were generated. Results: As detailed in the Table, 6m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.01 (PSA 0.01) LYs but no gains in QALYs at cost savings of $24,188 ($23,762), yielding a dominant ICER of $ -2,418,800 ($-2,376,200) per LYg (ICUR not estimable). Further, 12m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.04 (PSA 0.04) LYs (or 0.48m) and 0.02 (0.03) QALYs at incremental cost of $1,585 ($2,239), yielding ICER of $39,625 ($55,975) per LYg and ICUR of $79,250 ($74,633) per QALYg. Per CEAC, IKd is the dominated strategy in the 6m model and had probability of 50% of being cost-effective at WTP of $100,000 in the 12m model. Conclusions: Clinically, compared to DKd, IKd is associated with slight incremental gains in LYs of 0.12m over 6m and 0.48m over 1y. The 6m clinical gain comes with cost savings of approximately $24,000 or about 15% of IKd therapy, while the 12m gain requires a minimal cost commitment of around $2,000 or 0.6% of DKd treatment. These findings imply a clinico-economic benefit of isatuximab compared to daratumumab containing regimens in RRMM. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 3823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Selva-Sevilla ◽  
Elena Conde-Montero ◽  
Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Chronic Wounds ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Bayesian Regression ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Punch grafting is a traditional technique used to promote epithelialization of hard-to-heal wounds. The main purpose of this observational study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing punch grafting (n = 46) with usual care (n = 34) for the treatment of chronic wounds in an outpatient specialized wound clinic from a public healthcare system perspective (Spanish National Health system) with a three-month time horizon. CUA outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL-5D, whereas CEA outcome was wound-free period. One-way sensitivity analyses, extreme scenario analysis, and re-analysis by subgroups were conducted to fight against uncertainty. Bayesian regression models were built to explore whether differences between groups in costs, wound-free period, and QALYs could be explained by other variables different to treatment. As main results, punch grafting was associated with a reduction of 37% in costs compared to usual care, whereas mean incremental utility (0.02 ± 0.03 QALYs) and mean incremental effectiveness (7.18 ± 5.30 days free of wound) were favorable to punch grafting. All sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of our models. To conclude, punch grafting is the dominant alternative over usual care because it is cheaper and its utility and effectiveness are greater.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1528-1536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Wu ◽  
Lizheng Shi
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
The Cost

Background: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document