scholarly journals Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness of Fortified Blended Food Aid Products

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Regier ◽  
Brian L. Lindshield ◽  
Nina K. Lilja
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transportation Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Nutrient Value ◽  
Nutritional Data ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Blended Food

Background: Sorghum-Soy Blend (SSB) and Sorghum-Cowpea Blend (SCB) fortified blended food aid porridge products were developed as alternatives to Corn-Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) and Super Cereal Plus (SC+), the most widely used fortified blended food aid products. However, the cost and nutrient cost-effectiveness of these products procured from different geographical areas have not been determined. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the nutrient cost-effectiveness of SSB and SCB compared to existing fortified blended foods. Methods: Nutritional data as well as ingredient, processing, and transportation cost for SSB, SCB, and existing fortified blended foods were compiled. Using the omega value, the ratio of the fortified blended food’s Nutrient Value Score to the total cost of the fortified blended food divided by an identical ratio of a different fortified blended food or the same fortified blended food produced in a different country and the nutrient cost-effectiveness of each of the fortified blended foods procured in the United States and several African countries were determined. Results: Both CSB+ and SC+ are less expensive than SSB and SCB, but they also have lower Nutrient Value Scores of 7.7 and 8.6, respectively. However, the omega values of CSB+ and SC+ are all above 1 when compared to SSB and SCB, suggesting that the existing fortified blended foods are more nutrient cost-effective. Conclusions: Comparing the nutrient cost-effectiveness of various food aid products could provide valuable information to food aid agencies prior to making procurement decisions.

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.

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Epilepsy Surgery and Surgical Evaluation in the United States

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehryar R Sheikh ◽  
Michael P Steinmetz ◽  
Michael W Kattan ◽  
Mendel Singer ◽  
Belinda Udeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Effective Strategies ◽  
Surgical Evaluation ◽  
The Cost

Abstract INTRODUCTION Surgery is an effective treatment for many pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients, but incurs considerable cost. It is unknown whether surgery and surgical evaluation are cost-effective strategies in the United States. We aim to evaluate whether 1) surgery is cost-effective for patients who have been deemed surgical candidates when compared to continued medical management, 2) surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients who have drug-resistant temporal epilepsy and may or may not ultimately be deemed surgical candidates METHODS We use a Monte Carlo simulation method to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between two health states (‘seizure free’ and ‘having seizures’) as part of a Markov process, based on literature estimates. We adopt both healthcare and societal perspectives, including direct healthcare costs and indirect costs such as lost earnings by patients and care providers. We estimate variability of model predictions using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 1) Epilepsy surgery is cost effective in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost saving and more effective than medical management in the long run, with 95% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations favoring surgery. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost effective within 3 yr. At 5 yr, surgery has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,600, which is significantly below the societal willingness-to-pay (∼ $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) and comparable to hip/knee arthroplasty. 2) Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in pharmacoresistant patients even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is low (5%-10%). Even if the probability of surgical eligibility is only 10%, surgical referral has an ICER of $96,000/QALY, which is below societal willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION Epilepsy surgery and surgical evaluation are both cost-effective strategies in the United States. Pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

scholarly journals Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Hashemi-Meshkini ◽  
Hedieh Sadat Zekri ◽  
Hasan Karimi-Yazdi ◽  
Pardis Zaboli ◽  
Mohammad Ali Sahraian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pegylated Interferon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health States ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Background: Pegylated (PEG) interferon beta 1a has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) as an alternative to interferon beta 1a for multiple sclerosis (MS). Due to its higher price, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEG-interferon beta 1-a compared with interferon beta 1a from an Iranian payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was designed according to health states based on Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and one-month cycles over a 10-year time horizon. Direct medical and non-medical costs were included from a payer perspective. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated around 11111 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the PEG-interferon versus interferon regimen [with currency rate of 29,000 Iranian Rial (IRR) to 1 USD in 2016]. Conclusion: Considering the cost-effectiveness  threshold in Iran [three times of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita or 15,945 USD], PEG-interferon beta 1-a could be considered as a cost effective treatment for Iranian patients with MS.

Will Cost Effectiveness Analysis Worsen the Cost Effectiveness of Health Care?

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
David U. Himmelstein ◽  
Steffie Woolhandler ◽  
David H. Bor
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Analysts ◽  
Policy Cost ◽  
The Cost

Cost effectiveness analysis is increasingly advocated as a basis for health policy. Analysts often compare expensive interventions with highly cost-effective programs such as hypertension screening, implying that if the former were curtailed resources would be reallocated to the latter and the efficiency of health care would improve. However, in practice, savings are unlikely to be targeted in this way. We present refined policy models that take into account actual patterns of resource allocation in the United States, and provide more realistic estimates of the likely uses of savings. We illustrate the implications of these models in an analysis of the effects of diverting funds from an expensive but effective practice. Eliminating such a practice would actually worsen the overall cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care unless there are radical changes in health policy. Cost effectiveness analysis incorrectly predicts health and cost outcomes of policy initiatives because it ignores the political constraints to health care decision-making.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Li ◽  
Hanting Liu ◽  
Christopher Kit Fairley ◽  
Zhuoru Zou ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Booster Vaccination ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Benefit Cost Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Background: Over 86% of older adults aged ≥65 years are fully vaccinated against SARS-COV-2 in the United States (US). Waning protection of the existing vaccines promotes the new vaccination strategies, such as providing a booster shot for those fully vaccinated. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model of COVID-19 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a booster strategy of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (administered 6 months after 2nd dose) in those aged ≥65 years, from a healthcare system perspective. Findings: Compared with 2-doses of BNT162b2 without a booster, the booster strategy in a 100,000 cohort of older adults would incur an additional cost of $3.4 million, but save $6.7 million in direct medical costs in 180 days. This corresponds to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.95 and a net monetary benefit of $3.4 million. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that with a COVID-19 incidence of 9.1/100,000 person-day, a booster strategy has a high chance (67%) of being cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of the booster strategy is highly sensitive to the population incidence of COVID-19, with a cost-effectiveness threshold of 8.1/100,000 person-day. This threshold will increase with a decrease in vaccine and booster efficacies. Doubling the vaccination cost or halving the medical cost for COVID-19 treatment alone would not alter the conclusion of cost-effectiveness, but certain combinations of the two might render the booster strategy not cost-effective. Interpretation: Offering BNT162b2 boosters to older adults aged ≥65 years in the US is likely to be cost-effective. Less efficacious vaccines and boosters may still be cost-effective in settings of high SARS-COV-2 transmission. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China. Berlina and Bill Gates Foundation

Cost-effectiveness of various maintenance therapies based on mutation status following first-line treatment of primary epithelial ovarian cancer in the United States.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19399-e19399
Author(s):  
Courtney Penn ◽  
Melissa Wong ◽  
Christine S. Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Homologous Recombination ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Maintenance Strategies ◽  
The Cost

e19399 Background: The recent SOLO1, PRIMA, and PAOLA trials all reported positive efficacy results, making it difficult to determine optimal upfront maintenance therapy for patients with primary, advanced ovarian cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the maintenance strategies outlined in these trials for BRCA-positive patients, homologous-recombination deficient patients without a BRCA mutation (HRD-positive), and homologous-recombination proficient (HRD-negative) patients. Methods: Three decision analysis models were developed, one for each mutation status. We evaluated olaparib (SOLO1), olaparib/bevacizumab (PAOLA), bevacizumab alone (PAOLA), and niraparib (PRIMA) maintenance strategies. Base case 1 assessed olaparib vs olaparib/bevacizumab vs bevacizumab vs niraparib vs no maintenance therapy in BRCA-positive patients. Base cases 2 and 3 assessed olaparib/bevacizumab vs bevacizumab vs niraparib vs no maintenance therapy in HRD-positive and HRD-negative patients, respectively. Time horizon was 24 months. Costs, measured in U.S. dollars, were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and previously published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were in dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed varying drug cost and progression-free survival. Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/PF-LYS, none of the drug maintenance strategies could be considered cost effective compared with observation. In BRCA-positive patients (base case 1), olaparib monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, yielding an ICER of $181,059/PF-LYS. The third-party payer cost per 28-day supply of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17,000 to $9,200 to be considered cost effective compared with observation. In HRD-positive patients (base case 2) and HRD-negative patients (base case 3), bevacizumab monotherapy was the most cost-effective option, with ICERs of $326,491/PF-LYS and $253,937/PF-LYS respectively. Conclusions: At current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost effective, regardless of mutation status. In BRCA-positive women, lowering the cost of olaparib may make it cost effective compared with observation.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of ivermectin vs. albendazole in the presumptive treatment of strongyloidiasis in immigrants to the United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 132 (6) ◽  
pp. 1055-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. MUENNIG ◽  
D. PALLIN ◽  
C. CHALLAH ◽  
K. KHAN
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Strongyloides Stercoralis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Presumptive Treatment ◽  
The Cost

The presumptive treatment of parasitosis among immigrants with albendazole has been shown to save both money and lives, primarily via a reduction in the burden of Strongyloides stercoralis. Ivermectin is more effective than albendazole, but is also more expensive. This coupled with confusion surrounding the cost-effectiveness of guiding therapy based on eosinophil counts has led to disparate practices. We used the newly arrived year 2000 immigrant population as a hypothetical cohort in a decision analysis model to examine the cost-effectiveness of various interventions to reduce parasitosis among immigrants. When the prevalence of S. stercoralis is greater than 2%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of all presumptive treatment strategies were similar. Ivermectin is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1700 per QALY gained for treatment with 12 mg ivermectin relative to 5 days of albendazole when the prevalence is 10%. Any presumptive treatment strategy is cost-effective when compared with most common medical interventions.

scholarly journals Preventing COVID-19 Transmission on Labor and Delivery: A Decision Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 1031-1037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah M. Savitsky ◽  
Catherine M. Albright
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labor And Delivery ◽  
Induced Labor ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Objective The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). Study Design We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. Results In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. Conclusion Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. Key Points

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Screening of Pregnant Women in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1888-1895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Chaillon ◽  
Elizabeth B Rand ◽  
Nancy Reau ◽  
Natasha K Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Hcv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus’ (HCV) chronic prevalence among pregnant women in the United States doubled nationally from 2009–2014 (~0.7%), yet many cases remain undiagnosed. Screening pregnant women is not recommended by the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, despite new American Association For the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommending screening for this group. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for pregnant women in the United States. Methods An HCV natural history Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal HCV screening of pregnant women, followed by treatment after pregnancy, compared to background risk-based screening from a health-care payer perspective. We assumed a HCV chronic prevalence of 0.73% among pregnant women, based on national data. We assumed no Medicaid reimbursement restrictions by fibrosis stage at baseline, but explored differing restrictions in sensitivity analyses. We assessed costs (in US dollars) and health outcomes (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) over a lifetime horizon, using new HCV drug costs of $25 000/treatment. We assessed mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained. We additionally evaluated the potential population impact. Results Universal antenatal screening was cost-effective in all treatment eligibility scenarios (mean ICER <$3000/QALY gained). Screening remained cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.07%, which is the lowest estimated prevalence in the United States (in Hawaii). Screening the ~5.04 million pregnant women in 2018 could result in the detection and treatment of 33 000 women, based on current fibrosis restrictions. Conclusions Universal screening for HCV among pregnant women in the United States is cost-effective and should be recommended nationally.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Antenatal Rescreening Among Pregnant Women for Hepatitis C in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Chaillon ◽  
Adriane Wynn ◽  
Tatyana Kushner ◽  
Nancy Reau ◽  
Natasha K Martin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Hcv Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract To inform proposed changes in U.S. HCV screening guidelines, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV antenatal rescreening for women without evidence of HCV during a prior pregnancy, using a previously published model. Universal HCV rescreening among pregnant women was cost-effective (ICER $6,000/QALY) and should be recommended nationally.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document