scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: Myth or reality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Alain Frossard ◽  
Gregory Merlo ◽  
Brendan Burkett ◽  
Tanya Quincey ◽  
Debra Berg
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Limb Bone ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: In principle, lower limb bone-anchored prostheses could alleviate expenditure associated with typical socket manufacturing and residuum treatments due to socket-suspended prostheses. Objective: This study reports (a) the incremental costs and (b) heath gain as well as (c) cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket-suspended prostheses. Study design: Retrospective individual case-controlled observations and systematic review. Methods: Actual costs were extracted from financial records and completed by typical costs when needed over 6-year time horizon for a cohort of 16 individuals. Health gains corresponding to quality-adjusted life-year were calculated using health-related quality-of-life data presented in the literature. Results: The provision of bone-anchored prostheses costed 21% ± 41% more but increased quality-adjusted life-years by 17% ± 5% compared to socket-suspended prostheses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged between –$25,700 per quality-adjusted life-year and $53,500 per quality-adjusted life-year with indicative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $17,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Bone-anchored prosthesis was cost-saving and cost-effective for 19% and 88% of the participants, respectively. Conclusion: This study indicated that bone-anchored prostheses might be an acceptable alternative to socket-suspended prostheses at least from a prosthetic care perspective in Australian context. Altogether, this initial evidence-based economic evaluation provided a working approach for decision makers responsible for policies around care of individuals with lower limb amputation worldwide. Clinical relevance For the first time, this study provided evidence-based health economic benefits of lower limb bone-anchored prostheses compared to typical socket-suspended prostheses from a prosthetic care perspective that is essential to clinicians and decision makers responsible for policies.

scholarly journals Comparative clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 865-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Shuli Qu ◽  
Yanjun Liu ◽  
Xingxing Yao ◽  
Wei Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Does indication affect outcome?

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857321989786
Author(s):  
Jamie A Nicholson ◽  
Rhiannon Jones ◽  
Deborah J MacDonald ◽  
Iain Brown ◽  
Julie McBirnie
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background The primary aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in a prospective cohort of patients over a two-year post-operative period. Methods Patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively monitored for 24 months post-operatively using the Oxford Shoulder Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire. Any complications or use of health care resources were recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to express the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Results Sixty-seven patients were analysed, 46 primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff arthropathy and 21 revisions from previous arthroplasty. Both indications had comparable peri-operative shoulder scores without significant difference. Using the mean change of EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire at one year, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at £16,827.43 per quality-adjusted life year, decreasing to £8313.48 per quality-adjusted life year at two years. Primary was associated with a lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at two years (primary £7596.76 vs. revision £11,748.51). The estimated post-operative life expectancy of the cohort was 6.9 years with a projected cost per quality-adjusted life year of £2438.78. Conclusions Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides a cost-effective intervention with excellent patient outcomes at two years post-operatively.

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.

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Aguilar-Serra ◽  
Vicente Gimeno-Ballester ◽  
Alfonso Pastor-Clerigues ◽  
Javier Milara ◽  
Ezequiel Marti-Bonmati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Estimate Quality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of introducing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the management of complex phalangeal fractures: economic simulation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Faccioli ◽  
E. Santi ◽  
G. Foti ◽  
G. Mansueto ◽  
M. Corain
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the management of the complex finger fractures with articular involvement. Methods We created a decision tree model simulating the diagnostic pathway of complex finger fractures, suggesting the use of CBCT as alternative to multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), and we compared their clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients. Measures of effectiveness are analysed by using quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit. Results Diagnosis of a complex finger fracture performed with CBCT costed 67.33€ per patient, yielded 9.08 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 29.94€ and a net monetary benefit of 9.07 € at 30,000€ threshold. Using MSCT for diagnosis costed 106.23 €, yielded 8.18 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 371.15 € and a net monetary benefit of 8.09 €. CBCT strategy dominated the MSCT strategy. The acceptability curve shows that there is 98% probability of CBCT being the optimal strategy at 30,000€ threshold (1 EUR equal to 1.11 USD; updated on 02/02/2020). Conclusion CBCT in complex finger fractures management is cost saving compared with MSCT and may be considered a valuable imaging tool in preoperative assessment, allowing early detection and appropriate treatment. It shortens the time to completion of diagnostic work-up, reduces the number of additional diagnostic procedures, improves quality of life, and may reduce costs in a societal perspective.

scholarly journals Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (30) ◽  
pp. 1-116
Author(s):  
Juliet Hounsome ◽  
Gerlinde Pilkington ◽  
James Mahon ◽  
Angela Boland ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Group Model ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Impacted Mandibular Third Molars ◽  
Mandibular Third Molars ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. Objective The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. Methods Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. Results The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group’s lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. Limitations Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. Conclusions The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. Future work Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Medication review with follow-up for cardiovascular outcomes: a trial based cost–utility analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-242
Author(s):  
Antonio Ahumada-Canale ◽  
Constanza Vargas ◽  
Carlos Balmaceda ◽  
Francisco Martinez-Mardones ◽  
José Cristian Plaza-Plaza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To assess the trial-based cost–effectiveness of medication review with follow-up compared with usual care in primary care. Materials & methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial included patients if they were independent older adults, receiving five or more prescriptions, with moderate or high cardiovascular risk. Costs were estimated from the public healthcare sector perspective, and health benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years. Both of which were used to calculate the incremental cost–effectiveness ratio. Results: Twelve centers completed the study, six (146 patients) in the intervention group and six (145 patients) in the control group. The base-case analysis showed an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of US$ (2019) 434.4/quality-adjusted life year (95% CI 64.20–996.03). Conclusion: The intervention was cost-effective in the public primary care setting.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in chronic heart failure: an analysis from the Australian healthcare perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 204748732093827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feby Savira ◽  
Bing H Wang ◽  
Andrew R Kompa ◽  
Zanfina Ademi ◽  
Alice J Owen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Methods A Markov model was constructed based on the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of 1000 hypothetical subjects with established heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The model consisted of three health states: ‘alive and event-free’, ‘alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for heart failure’ and ‘dead’. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained. An Australian public healthcare perspective was employed. All outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. Results Over a lifetime horizon, the addition of dapagliflozin to standard care in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction prevented 88 acute heart failure hospitalisations (including readmissions) and yielded an additional 416 years of life and 288 quality-adjusted life-years (discounted) at an additional cost of A$3,692,440 (discounted). This equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$12,482 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, well below the Australian willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Subanalyses in subjects with and without diabetes resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$13,234 and A$12,386 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Conclusion Dapagliflozin is likely to be cost-effective when used as an adjunct therapy to standard care compared with standard care alone for the treatment of chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

scholarly journals ICER is good for us—Possibly not for you, he or she

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-98
Author(s):  
Markku Pekurinen
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Sufficient Criterion ◽  
Important Ingredient

Cleemput et al. make a point that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) alone is not a sufficient criterion to guide decision making in health care, and needs many other supplementary inputs. This is nothing new, it has been well known for years to researchers and decision makers alike. ICER serves as an important ingredient to guide decision making, at least in some healthcare systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document