A cost-utility analysis of open A1 pulley release for the treatment of trigger finger

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 1083-1086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul H. C. Stirling ◽  
Nicholas D. Clement ◽  
Paul J. Jenkins ◽  
Andrew D. Duckworth ◽  
Jane E. McEachan
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
A1 Pulley

The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence considers a procedure to be cost-effective if the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained falls below a threshold of £20,000–£30,000 (€22,600–33,900; US$24,600–$36,900). This study used cost per quality-adjusted life year methodology to determine the cost-utility ratio of A1 pulley release. Pre- and postoperative EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were collected prospectively over 6 years from 192 patients. The median pre- and postoperative indices derived from the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were significantly different at 0.77 and 0.80. The mean life expectancy was 21 years. The mean number of quality-adjusted life years gained was 1 per patient. The mean cost-utility ratio per patient was £32,308 (€36,508; US$39,730) and £16,154 (€18,254; US$19,869) at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Provided the benefit of surgery was maintained over the remaining life expectancy, the cost-utility ratio decreased to £1537 (€1737; US$1891) per patient. A1 pulley release is cost-effective provided the benefit is maintained for 2 years. The procedure is also associated with a statistically significant improvement in quality of life. Level of evidence: III

scholarly journals The clinical and economic efficiency of treatment in patients with chronic heart failure

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
E. I Tarlovskaya ◽  
S. V Malchikova
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Structure ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objective: to study the clinical and economic benefits of adding ivabradine to standard therapy for chronic heart failure (CHF). Subjects and methods. A clinical and economic analysis of the pharmacoeconomic efficacy of ivabradine (Coraxan Servier, France) in patients with CHF was made using the Markov simulation on the basis of the SHIFT trial. The cost-utility ratio (CUR) was calculated by the formula: CUR=DC/Ut, where DC is the direct cost of treatment; Ut is the cost utility expressed in life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). While calculating the latter, the model used the utility value derived in the SHIFT-PRO trial, by applying the EQ-5D questionnaire. Results. The monthly cost of standard pharmacotherapy was 799,14 rbl. per person. The treatment involving ivabradine cost 1807,77 rbl. The mean total direct cost for treating one patient was 64 741,09 and 47 647,83 rbl. in the ivabradine and placebo groups, respectively. The costs of hospital stay were ascertained to constitute 60% of all the direct costs in patients receiving standard therapy. On the contrary, addition of ivabradine to standard therapy allows avoidance of 309 admissions for worsening CHF, which permitted 23 709 879 rbl. to be saved. Reducing the costs of hospitalization enables one to spend 67% of the means for pharmacotherapy. Following a 10-year simulation period, the standard therapy remains more inexpensive than therapy involving ivabradine (74 585,31 rbl. per person versus 120 843,30 rbl per person) and ensures the lower cost of one LYG and one QALY. At the same time, the therapy added by ivabradine can prevent 1300 admissions for CHF and about 500 deaths per 10,000 patients over 10 years. This will lead to more life-years gained (4,277 LYGs on ivabradine therapy versus 4,083 LYGs on standard therapy), including quality-adjusted life years (3,031 QALYs on ivabradine therapy versus 2,839 QALYs on standard therapy). When ivabradine was added to standard therapy, the cost of one LYG was 238 443 rbl. and that of QALY was 240 927 rbl. Thus, the estimated medical intervention is a cost-effective investment. Conclusions: 1. To enhance the efficiency of CHF treatment with ivabradine causes a rational change in the cost structure. 2. To reduce the costs of hospitalizations and to change the cost structure provide a possibility of increasing those of qualitative therapy. 3. To incorporate ivabradine in therapy for systolic CHF can gain more additional life years, including quality-adjusted life years. 4. To increase expenses on therapy involving ivabradine per LYG is a cost-effective investment.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-341
Author(s):  
Salla Jäämaa-Holmberg ◽  
Birgitta Salmela ◽  
Raili Suojaranta ◽  
Karl B Lemström ◽  
Jyri Lommi
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock keeps increasing, but its cost-utility is unknown. Methods: We studied retrospectively the cost-utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a five-year cohort of consequent patients treated due to refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in a transplant centre in 2013–2017. In our centre, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is considered for all cardiogenic shock patients potentially eligible for heart transplantation, and for selected postcardiotomy patients. We assessed the costs of the index hospitalization and of the one-year hospital costs, and the patients’ health-related quality of life (response rate 71.7%). Based on the data and the population-based life expectancies, we calculated the amount and the costs of quality-adjusted life years gained both without discount and with an annual discount of 3.5%. Results: The cohort included 102 patients (78 cardiogenic shock; 24 cardiac arrest) of whom 67 (65.7%) survived to discharge and 66 (64.7%) to one year. The effective costs per one hospital survivor were 242,303€. Median in-hospital costs of the index hospitalization per patient were 129,967€ (interquartile range 150,340€). Mean predicted number of quality-adjusted life years gained by the treatment was 20.9 (standard deviation 9.7) without discount, and the median cost per quality-adjusted life year was 7474€ (interquartile range 10,973€). With the annual discount of 3.5%, 13.0 (standard deviation 4.8) quality-adjusted life years were gained with the cost of 12,642€ per quality-adjusted life year (interquartile range 15,059€). Conclusions: We found the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest justified from the cost-utility point of view in a transplant centre setting.

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 Cost–Utility of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Fibromyalgia versus a Multicomponent Intervention and Usual Care: A 12-Month Randomized Controlled Trial (EUDAIMON Study)

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 1068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrián Pérez-Aranda ◽  
Francesco D’Amico ◽  
Albert Feliu-Soler ◽  
Lance M. McCracken ◽  
María T. Peñarrubia-María ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stress Reduction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Indirect Costs ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a prevalent, chronic, disabling, pain syndrome that implies high healthcare costs. Economic evaluations of potentially effective treatments for FM are needed. The aim of this study was to analyze the cost–utility of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) as an add-on to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for patients with FM compared to an adjuvant multicomponent intervention (“FibroQoL”) and to TAU. We performed an economic evaluation alongside a 12 month, randomized, controlled trial; data from 204 (68 per study arm) of the 225 patients (90.1%) were included in the cost–utility analyses, which were conducted both under the government and the public healthcare system perspectives. The main outcome measures were the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) for assessing Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and improvements in health-related quality of life, and the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI) for estimating direct and indirect costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated. Two sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat, ITT, and per protocol, PPA) were conducted. The results indicated that MBSR achieved a significant reduction in costs compared to the other study arms (p < 0.05 in the completers sample), especially in terms of indirect costs and primary healthcare services. It also produced a significant incremental effect compared to TAU in the ITT sample (ΔQALYs = 0.053, p < 0.05, where QALYs represents quality-adjusted life years). Overall, our findings support the efficiency of MBSR over FibroQoL and TAU specifically within a Spanish public healthcare context.

Cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in Singapore

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-398
Author(s):  
Monica Teng ◽  
Hui Jun Zhou ◽  
Liang Lin ◽  
Pang Hung Lim ◽  
Doreen Yeo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. Results Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. Conclusions Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.

Nivolumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A cost-utility analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18331-e18331
Author(s):  
Jacques Raphael ◽  
Zhuolu Sun ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
David M Naimark
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

e18331 Background: Nivolumab was recently shown to improve overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life compared to Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients previously treated with antiangiogenic therapies (CheckMate-025 trial). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Methods: To evaluate the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus, a Markov cohort model that incorporated data from the phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial and other sources was developed. The outcomes of interest were healthcare costs, life-months and quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) gained with Nivolumab as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the incremental net monetary benefit. A lifetime time horizon was used in the base case with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually. The probabilities of progression and death from cancer and utility values were captured from the CheckMate-025 trial. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses (SAs) were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results: Compared to Everolimus, treatment with Nivolumab provided an additional 3.9 QALMs at an incremental cost of 33,386 Canadian dollars (CAD). The resulting ICER was 8,608CAD per QALM gained. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000CAD per Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ( = 4,167CAD per QALM), Nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case. In one-way SAs, Nivolumab cost, median OS and treatment duration on Nivolumab were sensitive to changes with plausible threshold values. Assuming a WTP of 100,000CAD per QALY ( = 8,334CAD per QALM) and a scenario of Nivolumab cost with no drug wastage, Nivolumab became a cost-effective strategy with an ICER of 7,881CAD per QALM. Conclusions: With its current price , Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with Everolimus for previously treated mRCC patients from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective. While mRCC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from Nivolumab, considerations should be given to reduce drug wastage and increase the WTP threshold to render this strategy more affordable.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Etoricoxib versus Celecoxib and Nonselective NSAIDs in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis in Norway

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen P. Jansen ◽  
Stephanie D. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Ceiling Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objectives. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib (90 mg) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), and the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg) and diclofenac (150 mg) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.Methods. A previously developed Markov state-transition model was used to estimate costs and benefits associated with initiating treatment with the different competing NSAIDs. Efficacy, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety, and resource use data were obtained from the literature. Data from different studies were synthesized and translated into direct costs and quality adjusted life years by means of a Bayesian comprehensive decision modeling approach.Results. Over a 30-year time horizon, etoricoxib is associated with about 0.4 more quality adjusted life years than the other interventions. At 1 year, naproxen is the most cost-saving strategy. However, etoricoxib is cost and quality adjusted life year saving relative to celecoxib, as well as diclofenac and naproxen after 5 years of follow-up. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of 200,000 Norwegian krones per quality adjusted life year, there is a >95% probability that etoricoxib is the most-cost-effective treatment when a time horizon of 5 or more years is considered.Conclusions. Etoricoxib is the most cost-effective NSAID for initiating treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.

scholarly journals Cost-Utility of a Single-Injection Combined Corticosteroid-Hyaluronic Acid Formulation vs a 2-Injection Regimen of Sequential Corticosteroid and Hyaluronic Acid Injections

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 117954411771299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Etienne L Belzile ◽  
Robert T Deakon ◽  
Christopher Vannabouathong ◽  
Mohit Bhandari ◽  
Martin Lamontagne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Single Injection ◽  
Symptomatic Relief ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Acid Formulation ◽  
Second Procedure ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Injection Regimen

Research has shown early and sustained relief with a combination therapy of a corticosteroid (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This can be administered via a single injection containing both products or as separate injections. The former may be more expensive when considering only product cost, but the latter incurs the additional costs and time of a second procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-utility of the single injection with the 2-injection regimen. The results of this analysis revealed that the single-injection formulation of a CS and HA may be cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, for symptomatic relief of OA symptoms. This treatment may also be more desirable to patients who find injections to be inconvenient or unpleasant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document