Peripherally inserted central catheter versus totally implanted venous port for delivering medium- to long-term chemotherapy: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on propensity score matching

2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982199136
Author(s):  
Kairong Wang ◽  
Yingfeng Zhou ◽  
Na Huang ◽  
Zhenqi Lu ◽  
Xiaoju Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Vascular Access ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) have been widely used for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. PICCs are associated with lower insertion cost, but higher complication rates than PORTs. However, there is a paucity of cost-effectiveness comparisons between the devices. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PICCs and PORTs for medium- to long-term chemotherapy from catheter insertion to removal. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on propensity score matching (PSM) from the hospital perspective. Data were collected from a retrospective cohort study. The total cost outcome comprised insertion, maintenance, removal and complication costs. The effectiveness outcome was the complication-free rate. The primary and supplemental outcomes were cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: A total of 1050 patients (after PSM for 417 patients) were included. The average total cost for 3–6 month ($603.55 ± 78.68 vs $1270.21 ± 128.84), 6–9 month ($731.40 ± 42.97 vs $1414.48 ± 155.43), and 9–12 month ($966.83 ± 53.78 vs $1587.76 ± 160.56) dwell times were all significantly lower for PICCs than for PORTs ( p < 0.001). PICCs were associated with significantly lower complication-free rates than PORTs during the 3–6 month (65.22% vs 90.58%, p < 0.001), 6–9 month (53.33% vs 91.80%, p < 0.001), and 9–12 month (44.44% vs 88.46%, p = 0.015) dwell times. Ultimately, PICCs were associated with lower CERs than PORTs for the 3–6 month (928.54 vs 1395.84) and 6–9 month (1380.00 vs 1537.48) but higher CER for the 9–12 month (2197.34 vs 1804.27) dwell times. ICERs were 2564.08 and 1751.49 with dwell times of 3–6 months and 6–9 months, respectively. Conclusion: This study provided economic evidence that informs vascular access device choice for medium- to long-term chemotherapy. For 3–9 month dwell times, PICCs were more cost-effective than PORTs. Furthermore, ICERs were applied and the choice was determined by willingness-to-pay. For 9–12 month dwell times, PORTs might be more cost-effective than PICCs, and studies with larger sample size would be needed to verify this finding in the future.

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Candesartan Therapy in Comparison to Candesartan-Amlodipine Therapy on Hypertensive Outpatients

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (22) ◽  
pp. 3837-3840
Author(s):  
Faridah Baroroh ◽  
Andriana Sari ◽  
Noviana Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hypertension Therapy ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND: he achievement of optimal hypertension therapy requires cost-effective medicine. The treatment of hypertensive patients needs for long-term medication have made medical costs a prime issue in health economics. AIM: This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of candesartan therapy compared to candesartan-amlodipine therapy on hypertensive outpatients. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study that compares candesartan therapy to candesartan-amlodipine therapy at a public hospital from payers’ perspective. The outcome is the percentage of targeted blood pressure decrease after three months of therapy. The cost effectiveness analysis uses the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) based on the ratio of cost difference to the outcome in both therapy groups. RESULTS: As many as 111 patients participated in this research, comprising 40 candesartan therapy patients and 71 patients with the combination of candesartan-amlodipine. Of the participants, 63.96% were female, 57.66% were aged 60 or older, and 56.32% had diabetes mellitus as the most common complication. Results show that the average direct medical cost per patient for a therapy of three months with candesartan was IDR 1,050,536 ± 730,007 and IDR 760,040 ± 614,290 for a candesartan-amlodipine therapy. The mean decline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure under candesartan therapy is less than that of candesartan-amlodipine, although without any significant difference (p > 0.05). It follows that the effectiveness of candesartan (85%) is greater than that of the candesartan-amlodipine combination (84.50%). Candesartan therapy is thereby more cost-effective with an ICER value of IDR 580,993/%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension therapy by candesartan is more cost-effective than candesartan-amlodipine therapy with a cost addition of IDR 580,993.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Very-low-dose aspirin and surveillance colonoscopy is cost-effective in secondary prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with advanced adenomas: network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajesh K. Veettil ◽  
Siang Tong Kew ◽  
Kean Ghee Lim ◽  
Pochamana Phisalprapa ◽  
Suresh Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
Combination Strategy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Methods Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk–benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained. Results According to NMA, the risk–benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective. Conclusion ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Mydriatic Ultrawide- Field Fundus Photography versus Pharmacological Pupil Dilatation in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document