Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in Brazil: Results from the RESILIENT trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 174749302110559
Author(s):  
Ana Claudia de Souza ◽  
Sheila O Martins ◽  
Carisi Anne Polanczyk ◽  
Denizar Vianna Araújo ◽  
Ana Paula BS Etges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Standard Medical Care ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background The RESILIENT trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of mechanical thrombectomy in patients presenting acute ischemic stroke secondary to anterior circulation large vessel occlusion in Brazil. Aims This economic evaluation aims to assess the cost-utility of mechanical thrombectomy in the RESILIENT trial from a public healthcare perspective. Methods A cost-utility analysis was applied to compare mechanical thrombectomy plus standard medical care (n = 78) vs. standard medical care alone (n = 73), from a subset sample of the RESILIENT trial (151 of 221 patients). Real-world direct costs were considered, and utilities were imputed according to the Utility-Weighted modified Rankin Score. A Markov model was structured, and probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results. Results The incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years gained with mechanical thrombectomy plus standard medical care were estimated at Int$ 7440 and 1.04, respectively, compared to standard medical care alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Int$ 7153 per quality-adjusted life year. The deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that mRS-6 costs of the first year most affected the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. After 1000 simulations, most of results were below the cost-effective threshold. Conclusions The intervention's clear long-term benefits offset the initially higher costs of mechanical thrombectomy in the Brazilian public healthcare system. Such therapy is likely to be cost-effective and these results were crucial to incorporate mechanical thrombectomy in the Brazilian public stroke centers.

Cost–effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Jiang ◽  
Zhichao He ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Chongchong Guo ◽  
Jianli Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Egf Receptor ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost–effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

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.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 553-562
Author(s):  
Hongfu Cai ◽  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO’s triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke: A cost-effectiveness and value of implementation analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 881-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Heggie ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Phil White ◽  
Gary A Ford ◽  
Joanna Wardlaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

Background Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. Aims To determine the cost-effectiveness, value of future research, and value of implementation of mechanical thrombectomy. Methods Using UK clinical and cost data from the Pragmatic Ischemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) trial, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy over time horizons of 90-days and lifetime, based on a decision-analytic model, using all existing evidence. We performed a meta-analysis of seven clinical trials to estimate treatment effects. We used sensitivity analysis to address uncertainty. Value of implementation analysis was used to estimate the potential value of additional implementation activities to support routine delivery of mechanical thrombectomy. Results Over the trial period (90 days), compared with best medical care alone, mechanical thrombectomy incurred an incremental cost of £5207 and 0.025 gain in QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £205,279), which would not be considered cost-effective. However, mechanical thrombectomy was shown to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, with an ICER of £3466 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information per patient eligible for mechanical thrombectomy in the UK is estimated at £3178. The expected value of full implementation of mechanical thrombectomy is estimated at £1.3 billion over five years. Conclusion Mechanical thrombectomy was cost-effective compared with best medical care alone over a patient’s lifetime. On the assumption of 30% implementation being achieved throughout the UK healthcare system, we estimate that the population health benefits obtained from this treatment are greater than the cost of implementation. Trial registration NCT01745692.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Preoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Rectal Cancer Undergoing Total Mesorectal Excision: A Study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandy van den Brink ◽  
Wilbert B. van den Hout ◽  
Anne M. Stiggelbout ◽  
Elma Klein Kranenbarg ◽  
Corrie A.M. Marijnen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Preoperative Radiotherapy ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Purpose To compare the societal costs and the (quality-adjusted) life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without short-term preoperative radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy). Patients and Methods We used a Markov model to project the clinical and economic outcomes of preoperative radiotherapy. Data on local recurrence rates, quality of life, and costs were obtained from the patients of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. In this trial, 1,861 patients with resectable rectal cancer from 108 hospitals were randomly assigned for TME surgery with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Outcome measures of the model were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime costs per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results The base case model estimates that the loss of quality of life due to preoperative radiotherapy is outweighed by the gain in life expectancy. Life expectancy increases by 0.67 years; quality-adjusted life expectancy, by 0.39 years; and costs, by $9,800 per patient. The corresponding cost-effectiveness ratio is $25,100 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness ratio remains acceptable under a wide range of assumptions. Conclusion Assuming that the reduced local recurrence rate does lead to a survival advantage, the cost-utility analysis estimates that the improved survival outweighs the impaired quality of life and the increased costs. We conclude that short-term preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer undergoing TME is both effective and cost-effective.

scholarly journals Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 566
Author(s):  
Julio Emilio Marco-Franco ◽  
Pedro Pita-Barros ◽  
Silvia González-de-Julián ◽  
Iryna Sabat ◽  
David Vivas-Consuelo
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Planning ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Simplified Model ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Funeral Homes ◽  
The Cost

When exceptional situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, arise and reliable data is not available at decision-making times, estimation using mathematical models can provide a reasonable reckoning for health planning. We present a simplified model (static but with two-time references) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. A simplified model provides a quick assessment of the upper bound of cost-effectiveness, as we illustrate with data from Spain, and allows for easy comparisons between countries. It may also provide useful comparisons among different vaccines at the marketplace, from the perspective of the buyer. From the analysis of this information, key epidemiological figures, and costs of the disease for Spain have been estimated, based on mortality. The fatality rate is robust data that can alternatively be obtained from death registers, funeral homes, cemeteries, and crematoria. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be 5132 € (4926–5276) as of 17 February 2021, based on the following assumptions/inputs: An estimated cost of 30 euros per dose (plus transport, storing, and administration), two doses per person, efficacy of 70% and coverage of 70% of the population. Even considering the possibility of some bias, this simplified model provides confirmation that vaccination against COVID-19 is highly cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets delivery models in mass campaign in rural Mozambique

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge A. H. Arroz ◽  
Baltazar Candrinho ◽  
Chandana Mendis ◽  
Melanie Lopez ◽  
Maria do Rosário O. Martins
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Universal Coverage ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Net Benefit ◽  
Incremental Net Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
And Control ◽  
Delivery Models ◽  
Long Lasting Insecticidal Nets

Abstract Objective The aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) delivery models (standard vs. new) in universal coverage (UC) campaigns in rural Mozambique. Results The total financial cost of delivering LLINs was US$ 231,237.30 and US$ 174,790.14 in the intervention (302,648 LLINs were delivered) and control districts (219,613 LLINs were delivered), respectively. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) per LLIN delivered and ACER per household (HH) achieving UC was lower in the intervention districts. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per LLIN and ICER per HH reaching UC were US$ 0.68 and US$ 2.24, respectively. Both incremental net benefit (for delivered LLIN and for HHs reaching UC) were positive (intervention deemed cost-effective). Overall, the newer delivery model was the more cost-effective intervention. However, the long-term sustainability of either delivery models is far from guaranteed in Mozambique’s current economic context.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Kloramfenikol Dan Seftriakson Untuk Pengobatan Demam Tifoid Pada Pasien Dewasa Di Rumah Sakit Sanglah Denpasar

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-112
Author(s):  
Amelia Lorensia ◽  
Doddy De Queljoe ◽  
Made Dwike Swari Santi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Typhoid Fever ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Two Alternatives

The number of typhoid fever patient in Indonesia is still high. Typhoid fever can be treated by antibiotic therapy such as chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of chloramphenicol and ceftriaxone which was given to adult patients who were diagnosed with typhoid fever in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital. A comparative study between two alternatives was conducted using the hospital perspective. Retrospective method was used to collect data from patient medical records, who was diagnosed and hospitalized in Sanglah Denpasar Hospital during January 2017 until July 2018. The cost analysis was perform using cost-effectiveness grid and cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) methods. Cost-effectiveness grid showed that dominant of ceftriaxone for patient with typhoid fever. ACER analysis for ceftriaxone was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectivenes (length of stay) 4.27 days, and was IDR 2,097,170.88 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 2.42 days. ACER analysis for chloramphenicol was IDR 2,555,464.22        with effectivenes (length of stay) 10.22 days, and was IDR 2,555,464.22 with effectiveness (the time of reaching normal temperature) 3.44 days. ACER analysis showed lower degree of ceftriaxone and higher effectiveness based on length of stay and the time of reaching normal temperature. The conclusion of this study is that ceftriaxone is more cost-effective than chloramphenicol.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of three diagnostic test strategies for angle closure in a developing country

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Mariana Y Miyamoto ◽  
Ralph Cohen ◽  
Niro Kasahara
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Angle Closure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Primary Angle Closure ◽  
Scheimpflug Camera ◽  
Camera Imaging ◽  
The Cost

Background/Aims The appropriate roles for alternative diagnostic tests in detecting primary angle closure of the eye are uncertain. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Scheimpflug camera imaging, the van Herick technique and gonioscopy to identify primary angle in a developing country. Methods This cross-sectional diagnostic study included participants aged >40 years with suspected primary angle closure in the developing country of Brazil. All participants underwent Scheimpflug camera imaging, a van Herick test and gonioscopy. The diagnostic ability of these tests was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Costs of interventions were derived using the Brazilian Hierarchical Classification of Medical Procedures. The cost-effectiveness of the tests were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results Gonioscopy was confirmed to be the most accurate diagnostic test for primary angle closure, closely followed by the van Herick test. The accuracy of Scheimpflug camera imaging was considerably lower, largely because of its low sensitivity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio demonstrated that Scheimpflug camera imaging was also the least cost-effective, as it was considerably more expensive but with less clinical benefits. Conclusions Because of its relatively low accuracy and high costs, Scheimpflug camera imaging is not as cost-effective as gonioscopy nor the van Herick test as a means of diagnosing primary angle closure in a developing country.

scholarly journals Cost-effective Analysis of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Long-term Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Narrative Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 292-305
Author(s):  
Shazia Jamshed ◽  
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula ◽  
Sheikh Muhammad Zeeshan Qadar ◽  
Umaira Alauddin ◽  
Sana Shamim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Step Down ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Term Management

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common gastrointestinal disorder that results from regurgitation of acid from the stomach into the esophagus. Treatment available for GERD includes lifestyle changes, antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and anti-reflux surgery. Aim: The aim of this review is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of PPIs in the long-term management of patients with GERD. Method: We searched in PubMed to identify related original articles with close consideration based on inclusion and exclusion criteria to choose the best studies for this narrative review. The first section compares the cost-effectiveness of PPIs with H2RAs in long-term heartburn management. The other sections shall only discuss the cost-effectiveness of PPIs in 5 different strategies, namely, continuous (step-up, step-down, and maintenance), on-demand, and intermittent therapies. Results: Of 55 articles published, 10 studies published from 2000 to 2015 were included. Overall, PPIs are more effective in relieving heartburn in comparison with ranitidine. The use of PPIs in managing heartburn in long-term consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) has higher cost compared with H2RA. However, if the decision-maker is willing to pay more than US$174 788.60 per extra quality-adjusted life year (QALY), then the optimal strategy is traditional NSAID (tNSAID) and PPIs. The probability of being cost-effective was also highest for NSAID and PPI co-therapy users. On-demand PPI treatment strategy showed dominant with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$2197 per QALY gained and was most effective and cost saving compared with all the other treatments. The average cost-effectiveness ratio was lower for rabeprazole therapy than for ranitidine therapy. Conclusion: Our review revealed that long-term treatment with PPIs is effective but costly. To achieve long-term cost-effective approach, we recommend on-demand approach to treat heartburn symptoms, but if the symptoms persist, treatment with continuous step-down therapy should be applied.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document