Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Lymphatic Embolization for Management of Plastic Bronchitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamaal L. Benjamin ◽  
Jack Rychik ◽  
Jordan A. Johnstone ◽  
Gregory J. Nadolski ◽  
Maxim Itkin

Background: Plastic bronchitis is a dreaded complication of single ventricle physiology occurring following palliation via Fontan procedure. Medical management of plastic bronchitis often fails, requiring heart transplantation. Percutaneous lymphatic embolization is an emerging treatment for plastic bronchitis. Methods: To determine the cost-effectiveness of competing management strategies, a modified Markov model was constructed with patients transiting through treatments—medical management, lymphatic embolization, or heart transplantation from a hospital system perspective. Health state transitions were modeled using an institutional review board–approved retrospective review of the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania’s plastic bronchitis cohort. Medication pricing data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Differences in costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a five-year horizon for each group were determined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was then calculated. Results: The mean cost of lymphatic embolization from procedure performance was US$340,941, US$385,841 for heart transplantation, and US$594,520 for medical management. The mean quality-adjusted survival of lymphatic embolization yielded an additional 0.66 QALYs ( P < .03) relative to heart transplantation and 1.3 ( P < .0001) relative to medical management. Orthotopic heart transplantation yielded an additional 0.66 QALYs ( P = .06) when comparing heart transplantation to medical management. Compared to medical management, lymphatic embolization generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$192,105. Similarly, compared to heart transplantation, lymphatic embolization yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$68,030. Conclusions: Of the available plastic bronchitis treatments, with a willingness to pay of US$150,000, lymphatic embolization produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio within the bounds considered to be cost-effective, potentially causing financial benefits to the health system.

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir A Tahami Monfared ◽  
Amy K O’Sullivan ◽  
Coleman Rotstein ◽  
George Papadopoulos

INTRODUCTION: Posaconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients prevents invasive fungal infection (IFI). An economic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of posaconazole from a Canadian health care system perspective.METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed based on data from a randomized trial comparing posaconazole with standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) therapy. The model was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using one-month Markov cycles; lifetime survival was specific to the underlying disease. Drug and treatment costs associated with IFI were estimated using published literature. The model was used to estimate total costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of posaconazole versus standard azole therapy, in 2007 Canadian dollars.RESULTS: Based on the clinical trial data, posaconazole was associated with fewer cases of IFI (0.05 versus 0.11; P=0.003), increased life-years (2.52 years versus 2.43 years) and slightly lower costs ($6,601 versus $7,045) per patient relative to standard azole therapy over a lifetime horizon. Higher acquisition costs for posaconazole were offset by IFI-associated inpatient costs for those prophylaxed with standard azoles. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 59% probability that posaconazole was cost-saving versus standard azole therapy and a 96% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for posaconazole was at or below the $50,000 per life-year saved threshold.DISCUSSION: In Canada, posaconazole appears to be cost-saving relative to standard azole therapy in IFI prevention among high-risk neutropenic patients.


Author(s):  
N. Faccioli ◽  
E. Santi ◽  
G. Foti ◽  
G. Mansueto ◽  
M. Corain

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of introducing cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the management of the complex finger fractures with articular involvement. Methods We created a decision tree model simulating the diagnostic pathway of complex finger fractures, suggesting the use of CBCT as alternative to multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT), and we compared their clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients. Measures of effectiveness are analysed by using quality-adjusted life years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit. Results Diagnosis of a complex finger fracture performed with CBCT costed 67.33€ per patient, yielded 9.08 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 29.94€ and a net monetary benefit of 9.07 € at 30,000€ threshold. Using MSCT for diagnosis costed 106.23 €, yielded 8.18 quality-adjusted life years, and gained an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 371.15 € and a net monetary benefit of 8.09 €. CBCT strategy dominated the MSCT strategy. The acceptability curve shows that there is 98% probability of CBCT being the optimal strategy at 30,000€ threshold (1 EUR equal to 1.11 USD; updated on 02/02/2020). Conclusion CBCT in complex finger fractures management is cost saving compared with MSCT and may be considered a valuable imaging tool in preoperative assessment, allowing early detection and appropriate treatment. It shortens the time to completion of diagnostic work-up, reduces the number of additional diagnostic procedures, improves quality of life, and may reduce costs in a societal perspective.


Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Micieli ◽  
Andrew M. Demchuk ◽  
Harindra C. Wijeysundera

Background and Purpose: Andexanet was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for reversal of life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding associated with factor Xa anticoagulation; however, the cost-effectiveness of Andexanet compared with standard of care (ie, prothrombin complex concentrate, PCC) in patients with factor Xa–associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) is unknown. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov cohort decision analytic model with a lifetime horizon was completed to determine the costs and benefits of Andexanet compared with PCC for reversal of factor Xa–associated ICrH. The population of interest was patients living in Canada on chronic factor Xa inhibitors for prevention of ischemic stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or the prevention/treatment of venous thromboembolism, presenting with an ICrH. Outcomes of interest were life expectancy (measured in years), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), costs (reported in 2020 Canadian dollars), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: An overall reduction in fatal ICrH and increase in thromboembolic events was associated with Andexanet compared with PCC. Andexanet had the highest discounted life expectancy of 2.53 years and a discounted QALY of 1.55. PCC had a discounted life expectancy of 2.09 years and a discounted QALY of 1.28. The average discounted lifetime costs were $237 177 Canadian dollars for Andexanet and $177 871 Canadian dollars for PCC. The strategy of Andexanet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $219 652 per QALY gained compared with the comparator of PCC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that Andexanet (at its current cost) was cost-effective in 19% of simulations using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY and 33% of simulations at $150 000/QALY. A 1-way sensitivity analysis found that for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be <$150 000/QALY gained, Andexanet high or standard dosing would require a price reduction to <$24 000 Canadian (at current baseline efficacy). Conclusions: Based on available evidence, Andexanet represents low value for reversal of factor Xa–associated ICrH; however, there is substantial uncertainty reflecting the currently available data. Further comparative evidence and costing data will become available in the future with randomized trials of Andexanet versus PCC.


2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 2459-2472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Wenceslao Orellano ◽  
Nestor Vazquez ◽  
Oscar Daniel Salomon

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of reducing tegumentary leishmaniasis transmission using insecticide-impregnated clothing and curtains, and implementing training programs for early diagnosis. A societal perspective was adopted, with outcomes assessed in terms of costs per disability adjusted life years (DALY). Simulation was structured as a Markov model and costs were expressed in American dollars (US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each strategy was calculated. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for early diagnosis strategy was estimated at US$ 156.46 per DALY averted, while that of prevention of transmission with insecticide-impregnated curtains and clothing was US$ 13,155.52 per DALY averted. Both strategies were more sensitive to the natural incidence of leishmaniasis, to the effectiveness of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis treatment and to the cost of each strategy. Prevention of vectorial transmission and early diagnosis have proved to be cost-effective measures.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1112-1118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Goldstein ◽  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
David H. Howard ◽  
Joseph Lipscomb ◽  
...  

Purpose The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard of care for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression is an accepted standard of care based on a 1.4-month increase in median overall survival observed in a randomized trial. No United States–based cost-effectiveness modeling analyses are currently available addressing the use of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line setting and when continued beyond progression from the perspective of US payers. Methods We developed two Markov models to compare the cost and effectiveness of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab in the first-line treatment and subsequent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan with or without bevacizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Model robustness was addressed by univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results Using bevacizumab in first-line therapy provided an additional 0.10 QALYs (0.14 life-years) at a cost of $59,361. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY. Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression provided an additional 0.11 QALYs (0.16 life-years) at a cost of $39,209. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY. In univariable sensitivity analyses, the variables with the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall survival, and utility. Conclusion Bevacizumab provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in both the first- and second-line settings of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 78-79
Author(s):  
Mark Hofmeister ◽  
Robert Sheldon ◽  
Eldon Spackman ◽  
Satish Raj ◽  
Mario Talajic ◽  
...  

Introduction:For patients with bifascicular block and syncope of unknown origin, different American Heart Association guidelines give Class 2A recommendations for two treatments: the implantable loop recorder (ILR) and empiric pacemaker insertion (PM). Equipoise reflected in guidelines may contribute to uncertainty in management and inefficient resource use. The objective of this analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of ILR compared to PM in the management of older adults (age>50 years) with bifascicular block and syncope over two years, from the perspective of a Canadian publicly funded health care system, in the Syncope: Pacing or Recording In ThE Later Years (SPRITELY) trial.Methods:Resource utilization data was collected throughout the trial, and unit costs were assigned (2017 Canadian dollars). Utility was measured at baseline and annually with the EQ-5D-3L. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated as area-under-the-curve, and adjusted for baseline imbalances in utility. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost effectiveness ratio were generated with non-parametric bootstrapping.Results:Mean cost in participants randomized to PM was CAD 9,759 (USD 7,400), compared to CAD 13,453 (USD 10,200) in participants randomized to ILR. The ILR strategy resulted in 0.020 QALYs more than the PM strategy. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CAD 186,553 (95% CI: −831,950–1,191,816) (USD 141,900, 95% CI: −632,740–906,440) per additional QALY. In 1,000 bootstrapped replicates, the cost of the ILR strategy was always greater than that of the PM strategy. At the threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 38,000) per additional QALY, the probability that the ILR strategy is the cost effective option is 0.504.Conclusions:ILR costs were greater than PM costs, with little difference in QALY outcomes over two-years. Findings are generalizable to patients similar to SPRITELY participants, from the perspective of the Canadian health care system. However, practice pattern variation and payment systems inhibit generalizability to other countries. Future analysis will explore cost and QALY outcomes in countries that participated in the SPRITELY trial.


Stroke ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 2844-2850
Author(s):  
Estefanía Ruiz Vargas ◽  
Luciano A. Sposato ◽  
Spencer A. W. Lee ◽  
Vladimir Hachinski ◽  
Lauren E. Cipriano

Background and Purpose— Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are safer, at least equally efficacious, and cost-effective compared to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but they remain underused, particularly in demented patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods— We constructed a microsimulation model to estimate the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy (adjusted-dose warfarin and various DOACs) in 70-year-old patients with AF and AD from a US societal perspective. We stratified patient cohorts based on stage of AD and care setting. Model parameters were estimated from secondary sources. Health benefits were measured in the number of acute health events, life-years, and QALYs gained. We classified alternatives as cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained. Results— For patients with AF and AD, compared with warfarin, DOACs increase costs but also increase QALYs by reducing the risk of stroke. For mild-AD patients living in the community, edoxaban increased lifetime costs by $6603 and increased QALYs by 0.076 compared to warfarin, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86 882/QALY gained. Even though DOACs increased QALYs compared with warfarin for all patient groups (ranging from 0.019 to 0.085 additional QALYs), no DOAC treatment alternative had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$150 000/QALY gained for patients with moderate to severe AD. For patients living in a long-term care facility with mild AD, the DOAC with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (rivaroxaban) costs $150 169 per QALY gained; for patients with more severe AD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were higher. Conclusions— For patients with AF and mild AD living in the community, edoxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin. Even though patients with moderate and severe AD living in the community and patients with any stage of AD living in a long-term care setting may obtain positive clinical benefits from anticoagulation treatment, DOACs are not cost-effective compared with warfarin for these populations. Compared to aspirin, no oral anticoagulation (warfarin or any DOAC) is cost effective in patients with AF and AD.


Author(s):  
Derek S. Chew ◽  
Zak Loring ◽  
Jatin Anand ◽  
Marat Fudim ◽  
Angela Lowenstern ◽  
...  

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.


Author(s):  
Tianfu Gao ◽  
Jia Liu ◽  
Jing Wu

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib combination therapy versus vemurafenib as first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: This study employed a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and dead) to parameterize the data derived from Combi-v trial and extrapolated to 30 years. Health states’ utilities were measured by EQ-5D-3L, also sourced from the Combi-v trial. Costs including drug acquisition costs, disease management costs and adverse event costs were based on the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and physician survey in China. The primary outcomes of the model were lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, respectively. Result: Dabrafenib plus trametinib is projected to increase a patient’s life expectancy by 0.95 life-years over vemurafenib (3.03 vs. 2.08) and 1.09 QALY gains (2.48 vs. 1.39) with an incremental cost of $3833. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $3511 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of $33,357 per QALY (three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020), the probability of dabrafenib plus trametinib being cost-effective was 90%. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to the dabrafenib plus trametinib drug costs, vemurafenib drug costs and discount rate of cost. Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy yields more clinical benefits than vemurafenib. Using a threshold of $33,357 per QALY, dabrafenib plus trametinib is very cost-effective as compared with vemurafenib in China.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document