Allograft Augmentation of Hamstring Autograft for Younger Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 892-899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cale A. Jacobs ◽  
Jeremy M. Burnham ◽  
Eric C. Makhni ◽  
Chaitu S. Malempati ◽  
Eric C. Swart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Graft Failure ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Graft Diameter ◽  
Return To Activity

Background: Younger patients and those with smaller hamstring autograft diameters have been shown to be at significantly greater risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To date, there is no information in the literature about the clinical success and/or cost-effectiveness of increasing graft diameter by augmenting with semitendinosus allograft tissue for younger patients. Hypothesis: Hybrid hamstring grafts are a cost-effective treatment option because of a reduced rate of graft failure. Study Design: Cohort study (economic and decision analysis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients younger than 18 years who had undergone ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2015. During this period, the operating surgeon’s graft selection algorithm included the use of bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts for the majority of patients younger than 18 years. However, hamstring autografts (hamstring) or hybrid hamstring autografts with allograft augment (hybrid) were used in skeletally immature patients and in those whom the surgeon felt might have greater difficulty with postoperative rehabilitation after BTB graft harvest. Patient demographics, graft type, graft diameter, the time the patient was cleared to return to activity, and the need for secondary surgical procedures were compared between the hamstring and hybrid groups. The clinical results were then used to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of hybrid grafts in this select group of young patients with an ACL injury or reconstruction. Results: This study comprised 88 patients (hamstring group, n = 46; hybrid group, n = 42). The 2 groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, timing of return to activity, or prevalence of skeletally immature patients. Graft diameters were significantly smaller in the hamstring group (7.8 vs 9.9 mm; P < .001), which corresponded with a significantly greater rate of graft failure (13 of 46 [28.3%] vs 5 of 42 [11.9%]; P = .049). As a result of the reduced revision rate, the hybrid graft demonstrated incremental cost savings of US$2765 compared with the hamstring graft, and the hybrid graft was the preferred strategy in 89% of cases. Conclusion: Driven by increased graft diameters and the reduced risk of revision, hybrid grafts appear to be a more cost-effective treatment option in a subset of younger patients with an ACL injury.

scholarly journals The Cost-effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs plus Proton-pump Inhibitors for Treating Osteoarthritis in Algeria

10.36469/9865 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadir Hammoumraoui ◽  
Sid Ahmed Kherraf ◽  
Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽  
Tarek A. Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Private Clinic ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but are more expensive. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for treating OA in Algeria. Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model from UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted for costeffectiveness analysis in OA patients aged ≥65 years. Patients could initiate treatment with celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs with/without omeprazole. Conditional probabilities were obtained from published clinical trials; effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained/patient. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer’s perspective. The average daily treatment costs and frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in August 2011 from a private clinic located in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: QALYs gained/patient over a 6-month horizon were higher with celecoxib (0.368) and celecoxib+PPI (0.40) versus comparators. The lowest expected cost/patient was associated with ibuprofen (US$134.76 versus US$175.67 with celecoxib+PPI, and US$177.57 with celecoxib). Celecoxib+PPI was the most cost-effective drug treatment, with an ICER of US$584.43, versus ibuprofen. Treatment with celecoxib alone showed an ICER of US$1,530.56 versus diclofenac+PPI. These ICERs are &lt;1 gross domestic product per capita in Algeria (US$7,500). Over 1-year, 3-year and 5-year horizons, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy showed higher QALYs/patient versus comparators, and decreasing ICERs. The ICER of celecoxib+PPI was lower than that of comparators over all time horizons. These findings were confirmed with CEACs generated via PSA. Conclusion: Using data from a single private clinic in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria, and after considering new adverse event risks, we showed that celecoxib with/without PPI co therapy is more cost-effective than ns-NSAID+PPI for treating OA patients aged ≥65 years. Celecoxib+PPI remains dominant over a 5-year horizon, making it the most cost-effective treatment option for medium- and long-term use.

scholarly journals Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy compared with cognitive–behavioural therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression in the UK

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (14) ◽  
pp. 3019-3031 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Koeser ◽  
V. Donisi ◽  
D. P. Goldberg ◽  
P. McCrone
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Background.The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales recommends the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression. However, the cost-effectiveness analysis on which these recommendations are based has not included psychotherapy as monotherapy as a potential option. For this reason, we aimed to update, augment and refine the existing economic evaluation.Method.We constructed a decision analytic model with a 27-month time horizon. We compared pharmacotherapy with cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and combination treatment for moderate to severe depression in secondary care from a healthcare service perspective. We reviewed the literature to identify relevant evidence and, where possible, synthesized evidence from clinical trials in a meta-analysis to inform model parameters.Results.The model suggested that CBT as monotherapy was most likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option above a threshold of £22 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). It dominated combination treatment and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £20 039 per QALY compared with pharmacotherapy. There was significant decision uncertainty in the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.Conclusions.Contrary to previous NICE guidance, the results indicated that even for those patients for whom pharmacotherapy is acceptable, CBT as monotherapy may be a cost-effective treatment option. However, this conclusion was based on a limited evidence base, particularly for combination treatment. In addition, this evidence cannot easily be transferred to a primary care setting.

Allograft Augmentation of Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Autografts Is Associated With Increased Graft Failure in Children and Adolescents

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1576-1582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crystal A. Perkins ◽  
Michael T. Busch ◽  
Melissa Christino ◽  
Mackenzie M. Herzog ◽  
S. Clifton Willimon
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Graft Failure ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Hamstring Tendon ◽  
Hamstring Graft ◽  
Tissue Allograft ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Graft Diameter

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in adolescents is commonly performed with hamstring tendon autografts. Small graft diameter is one risk factor for graft failure and options to upsize the autologous hamstring graft include allograft augmentation and tripling one or both of the hamstring tendons. Purpose: To evaluate the association of upsized hamstring graft constructs and graft rupture after ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients 19 years of age and younger who underwent hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction with or without soft tissue allograft augmentation from 2012 to 2016. All patients were skeletally mature or had less than 2 years of growth remaining. Graft constructs included 4-strand doubled semitendinosus and gracilis autograft (4-STG), 5-strand tripled semitendinosus and doubled gracilis autograft (5-STG), and 6-strand doubled gracilis and semitendinosus autograft augmented with a soft tissue allograft (6-STGAllo). The primary outcome measure was graft rupture. Results: A total of 354 patients with a mean age of 15.3 years (range, 10-19 years) were included. Graft constructs included 4-STG (198 knees), 5-STG (91 knees), and 6-STGAllo (65 knees). The average diameter of the graft constructs was 8.3 mm for 4-STG, 8.9 mm for 5-STG, and 9.2 mm for 6-STGAllo ( P < .001). The mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 6-56 months). There were 50 (14%) graft ruptures and 24 (7%) contralateral ACL tears. The graft failure rates were 14% for 4-STG, 12% for 5-STG, and 20% for 6-STGAllo ( P = .51). The average time to graft failure was 16 months (range, 2-40 months). After adjusting for age and graft size, patients who had allograft-augmented grafts (6-STGAllo) had 2.6 (95% CI, 1.02, 6.50) times the odds of graft rupture compared with 4-STG. There was no significant difference in failure rate between patients who had 5-STG grafts compared with 4-STG (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5, 2.7). Conclusion: ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts augmented with allografts has a significantly increased risk of graft rupture compared with comparably sized hamstring tendon autografts. In situations where the surgeon harvests an inadequately sized 4-strand autograft, we recommend obtaining a larger graft diameter by tripling the semitendinosus rather than augmenting with an allograft.

Safer and Cheaper: An Enhanced Milestone-Based Return to Play Program After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Young Athletes Is Cost-Effective Compared With Standard Time-Based Return to Play Criteria

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1100-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. DeFrancesco ◽  
Drake G. Lebrun ◽  
Joseph T. Molony ◽  
Madison R. Heath ◽  
Peter D. Fabricant
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Safe return to play (RTP) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is critical to patient satisfaction. Enhanced rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction with appropriate objective criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of subsequent injury. The cost-effectiveness of an enhanced RTP (eRTP) strategy relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation has not been investigated. Purpose: To determine if an eRTP strategy after ACL reconstruction is cost-effective compared with standard rehabilitation. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis. Methods: A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an eRTP strategy, which includes additional neuromuscular retraining, advanced testing, and follow-up physician visits. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions as a result of the eRTP strategy, and relevant health utilities were derived from the literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. In the base case analysis, the eRTP strategy cost was conservatively estimated to be $969 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. Completion of the eRTP strategy was considered to confer a 25% risk reduction for graft rupture in comparison with standard rehabilitation. Results: The eRTP strategy was more cost-effective than standard rehabilitation alone. Based on 1-way threshold analyses, the eRTP strategy was cost-effective as long as its additional cost over standard rehabilitation was <$2092 or the eRTP strategy decreased the incidence of contralateral ACL rupture by >13.8%. Conclusion: The eRTP strategy in this study adds additional neuromuscular retraining and additional physician follow-up—as well as advanced testing goals upon which RTP is contingent—to traditional physical therapy. Our data suggest that these additions are cost-effective, even assuming only modest associated decreases in ACL graft failure. This study also determined that the only variable that had the potential to change the cost-effectiveness conclusion based on predetermined ranges was the additional cost of rehabilitation based on 1-way sensitivity analysis. Clinical Relevance: This study provides evidence of cost-effectiveness for payers, supporting the use of enhanced RTP programs. The sensitivity analyses herein may be used to determine if any given RTP program going forward is cost-effective, regardless of the exact components of the program.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infection in women: a comparison of four antibiotics

BJGP Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen17X101097
Author(s):  
Susannah Sadler ◽  
Michael Holmes ◽  
Shijie Ren ◽  
Stephen Holden ◽  
Swati Jha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Urinary Tract ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Effective Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infection ◽  
Adult Women ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Tract Infections

BackgroundUrinary tract infections (UTIs) are one of the most common reasons for women to attend primary care. There are four different antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI but little evidence on their comparative cost-effectiveness.AimTo assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the four antibiotics currently recommended in England for treatment of uncomplicated UTI in adult women.Design & settingA cost-effectiveness model in adult women with signs and symptoms of uncomplicated UTI in primary care in England treated with fosfomycin, nitrofurantoin, pivmecillinam, or trimethoprim.MethodA decision tree economic model of the treatment pathway encompassed up to two rounds of treatment, accounting for different resistance levels. End points included recovery, persistence, pyelonephritis, and/or hospitalisation. Prescription, primary and secondary care treatment, and diagnostic testing costs were aggregated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per UTI resolved.ResultsTrimethoprim 200 mg twice daily (for 3 or 7 days) was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment (£70 per UTI resolved) when resistance was <30%. However, if resistance to trimethoprim was ≥30%, fosfomycin 3 g once became more cost-effective; at resistance levels of ≥35% for trimethoprim, both fosfomycin 3 g once and nitrofurantoin 100 mg twice daily for 7 days were shown to be more cost-effective.ConclusionKnowing local resistance levels is key to effective and cost-effective empirical prescribing. Recent estimates of trimethoprim resistance rates are close to 50%, in which case a single 3 g dose of fosfomycin is likely to be the most cost-effective treatment option.

scholarly journals MODEL-BASED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONVENTIONAL AND INNOVATIVE CHEMO-RADIATION IN LUNG CANCER

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 681-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilda L. Bongers ◽  
Dirk de Ruysscher ◽  
Cary Oberije ◽  
Philippe Lambin ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
The Impact

Introduction:Optimizing radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy through advanced imaging and accelerated radiation schemes shows promising results in locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study compared the cost-effectiveness of positron emission tomography-computed tomography based isotoxic accelerated sequential chemo-radiation (SRT2) and concurrent chemo-radiation with daily low-dose cisplatin (CRT2) with standard sequential (SRT1) and concurrent chemo-radiation (CRT1).Methods:We used an externally validated mathematical model to simulate the four treatment strategies. The model was built using data from 200 NSCLC patients treated with curative sequential chemo-radiation. For concurrent strategies, data from a meta-analysis and a single study were included in the model. Costs, utilities, and resource use estimates were obtained from literature. Primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of each strategy. Scenario analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of uncertainty.Results:Total undiscounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for SRT1, CRT1, SRT2, and CRT2 were EUR 17,288, EUR 18,756, EUR 19,072, EUR 17,360 and QALYs 1.10, 1.15, 1.40, and 1.40, respectively. Compared with SRT1, the ICURs were EUR 38,024/QALY for CRT1, EUR 6,249/QALY for SRT2, and EUR 346/QALY for CRT2. CRT2 was highly cost-effective compared with SRT1. Moreover, CRT2 was more effective and less costly than CRT1 and SRT2. Therefore, these strategies were dominated by CRT2.Conclusion:Optimized sequential and concurrent chemo-radiation strategies are more effective and cost-effective than the current conventional sequential and concurrent strategies. Concurrent chemo-radiation with a daily low dose cisplatin regimen is the most cost-effective treatment option for locally advanced inoperable NSCLC patients.

scholarly journals The Utility of Objective Strength and Functional Performance to Predict Subjective Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596711774475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Menzer ◽  
Lindsay V. Slater ◽  
David Diduch ◽  
Mark Miller ◽  
Grant Norte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Return To Activity ◽  
Subjective Outcomes

Background: Many clinicians release patients to return to activity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) based on time from surgery despite deficits in muscle strength and function. It is unclear whether symmetry or unilateral performance is the best predictor of subjective outcomes after ACLR. Purpose: To determine physical performance predictors of patient-reported outcomes after reconstruction. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 88 participants (49 males, 39 females; mean ± SD height, 174.0 ± 9.6 cm; weight, 76.1 ± 18.5 kg; age, 19.4 ± 3.7 years) who underwent primary, unilateral ACLR volunteered for this study. Participants had undergone reconstruction a mean of 6.9 ± 1.8 months (range, 5.0-14.1 months) before the study. All participants underwent strength testing as well as hop testing and then completed the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaires. Stepwise linear regression models were used for symmetry and unilateral performance to identify the proportion of variance explained in the IKDC score, KOOS total score, KOOS-sport subscale, and time from surgery, as well as receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses on those variables that explained the most variance in patient-reported outcomes to determine cutoff thresholds. Results: No significant correlations were found between time from surgery and objective performance. The only significant predictors of IKDC score were single-hop limb symmetry index (LSI) and age ( R2 = 0.177) and unilateral triple-hop performance and age ( R2 = 0.228). The cutoff for single-hop symmetry was 0.92 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.703; P = .012), and the cutoff for normalized triple-hop distance was 3.93 (AUC, 0.726; P = .005). When stratified by age, the cutoff for single-hop symmetry was 0.81 (AUC, 0.721; P = .051) for younger patients (age <19.1 years) and was not significant for older patients (age ≥19.1 years). The cutoff for normalized triple-hop distance was 3.85 (AUC, 0.832; P = .005) in older patients and was not significant for younger patients. The only significant predictors of KOOS-sport subscale were single-hop LSI ( R2 = 0.140) and normalized knee extensor power at 180 deg/s ( R2 = 0.096). When subjective outcomes were predicted based on KOOS-sport subscale, the cutoff for single-hop symmetry was 0.85 (AUC, 0.692; P = .018). Conclusion: Hopping performance is the most predictive functional variable of subjective outcomes after reconstruction. Single-hop symmetry was most important for younger patients and unilateral triple-hop distance was most important for older patients. Clinicians should consider hopping performance when making return-to-activity decisions after ACLR.

scholarly journals COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR RETURN-TO-PLAY (RTP) PROGRAMS AFTER ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0019
Author(s):  
Christopher DeFrancesco ◽  
Drake Lebrun ◽  
Joseph Molony ◽  
Peter D. Fabricant
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocol ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury in young athletes. Safe return-to-play (RTP, i.e. sports competition) is important to patient satisfaction, and appropriate criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of graft injury. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive RTP rehabilitation protocol relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation. Methods: A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an RTP program which included supplemental neuromuscular retraining, functional testing, and clinical follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of ipsilateral graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions due to the RTP program, and relevant utilities based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) outcomes were derived from the available literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of <$100,000/QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to measure their effect on base-case conclusions. In the base-case analysis, the cost of an RTP program was conservatively assumed to be $1,721 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. The relative risk of ACL graft rupture following completion of the RTP program was assumed to be 0.75 (25% reduction). Results: In the base-case analysis, the RTP program was cost-effective compared with the standard rehabilitation protocol (ICER $54,939/QALY). Based on one-way threshold analyses, the RTP program was cost-effective as long as the additional cost was <$2,092 or the RTP program decreased the incidence of graft rupture by >7.7%. Conclusion: Our data suggests that, assuming modest associated decreases in graft failure, the addition of neuromuscular retraining, functional testing, and clinical follow-up to a formal rehabilitation program is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of such additions is related to the costs as well as any associated decreases in subsequent event risk, as shown in Figure 1. Figures: [Figure: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness: Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Vascular Dementia

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla L. Wong ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Philip E. Lee ◽  
Aslam H. Anis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cholinesterase Inhibitors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Background:Several randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments. However, given these drugs incur considerable cost, the economic argument for their use is less clear.Objective:To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for mild to moderate vascular dementia.Design:A decision analysis model using a 24-28 week time horizon was developed. Outcomes of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and probabilities of adverse events were extracted from a systematic review. Costs of adverse events, medications, and physician visits were obtained from local estimates. Robustness was tested with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.Interventions:Donepezil 5 mg daily, donepezil 10 mg daily, galantamine 16-24 mg daily, rivastigmine flexible dosing up to 6 mg twice daily, or memantine 10 mg twice daily versus standard care.Main Outcome Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per unit decrease in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) subscale.Results:Donepezil 10 mg daily was found to be the most cost-effective treatment with an ICER of $400.64 (95%CI, $281.10-$596.35) per unit decline in the ADAS-cog subscale. All other treatments were dominated by donepezil 10 mg, that is, more costly and less effective.Conclusion:From a societal perspective, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine was more effective but also more costly than standard care for mild to moderate vascular dementia. The donepezil 10 mg strategy was the most cost-effective and also dominated the other alternatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document