scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Particulated Juvenile Articular Cartilage Versus Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation for Patellar Chondral Lesions (176)

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0029
Author(s):  
Drake LeBrun ◽  
Jake Feingold ◽  
Stephanie Swenson-Buza ◽  
Simone Gruber ◽  
Elizabeth Dennis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Patellar Cartilage ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Objectives: Treatment options for articular cartilage lesions of the patella have evolved over the past several years due to the development of novel cell-based cartilage restoration techniques, including particulated juvenile allograft cartilage (PJAC) and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost -effectiveness of these modalities in the management of patellar cartilage defects. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was utilized to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three strategies for patients with patellar chondral lesions: (1) nonoperative management, (2) PJAC, and (3) MACI. Probabilities, health utilities, and costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols were derived from institutional data and literature review. Effectiveness was assessed using quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from societal and payer perspectives over a 15-year time horizon. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. Results: From a societal perspective, nonoperative management, PJAC, and MACI cost $4,140, $52,683, and $83,073 respectively. Nonoperative management, PJAC, and MACI were associated with 4.91, 7.07, and 7.79 QALYs gained, respectively. Therefore, PJAC and MACI were cost-effective relative to nonoperative management (ICERs $22,527/QALY and $27,456/QALY, respectively; Figure 1). Although MACI was more cost-effective than PJAC in the base case, this was strongly sensitive to the estimated probabilities of full versus intermediate benefit following PJAC and MACI (Table 1). If the probabilities of full and intermediate benefit following PJAC were assumed to be the same as those following MACI (i.e., PJAC and MACI were equally effective), then PJAC dominated MACI by being cheaper and more effective. At a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MACI, PJAC, and nonoperative management were the preferred strategies in 63%, 33%, and 4% of the Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses, respectively (Figures 2 and 3). Similar results were seen from a payer perspective. Conclusions: In the management of symptomatic patellar cartilage defects, PJAC and MACI were both cost-effective compared to nonoperative treatment in the management of symptomatic patellar cartilage defects; however, MACI was the preferred strategy in our base-case analysis. The cost-effectiveness of PJAC compared to MACI depended heavily on the probability of achieving full versus intermediate benefit after PJAC and MACI.

scholarly journals P14.12 The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii68-iii69
Author(s):  
X Armoiry ◽  
P Auguste ◽  
C Dussart ◽  
J Guyotat ◽  
M Connock
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Survival Model ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND The addition of novel therapy “Tumor-Treating fields” (TTF) to standard radio-chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) has recently shown superiority over conventional TMZ regimen in patients with glioblastoma. Despite the clinical benefit of TTF, there is a strong concern regarding the cost of this new treatment. A first cost-effectiveness analysis, which was published in 2016, was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial and used a “standard” Markov model. Here, we aimed to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a partitioned survival model design and using the latest effectiveness data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partitioned survival model was developed with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Parametric models were fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall and progression-free survival. These generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. The perspective of the French national health insurance was adopted and the time horizon was 20 years. Base case results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Secondary analyses were undertaken, with the results presented as cost/per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Last, we undertook deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS After applying 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, the base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.507 LY at a incremental cost of €258,695 yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273 / LYG. Secondary analyses yielded an ICER of €667,173/QALY. Sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods showed the model was relatively robust. The model was sensitive to TTF device costs and the parametric model fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall survival. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed TTF has 0% of being cost-effective under conventional thresholds. CONCLUSION Using a partitioned survival model, uprated costs and more mature survival outcomes, TTF when compared to standard radio-chemotherapy with TMZ is not likely to be cost-effective. This has major implications in terms of access of newly eligible patients

scholarly journals Cost-utility Analysis of Trabecular Micro-bypass Stents (TBS) in Patients With Mild-to-moderate Open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Maria Fea ◽  
Francesco Cattel ◽  
Stefano Gandolfi ◽  
Giorgio Buseghin ◽  
Gianluca Furneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Istent Inject ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8,368.51 vs. €7,134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness (CEAC) analysis showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective. Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness and value-based prices of the 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer in China: an economic modelling analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Jiang ◽  
Weiyi Ni ◽  
Jing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hpv Vaccine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Economic Modelling ◽  
Current Price ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer in China.DesignHealth economic modelling using the Papillomavirus Rapid Interface for Modelling and Economics (PRIME) model populated with China-specific data.SettingIndividual cervical cancer prevention in China using the 9-valent HPV vaccine from the perspective of private sector purchasers in relation to receiving other HPV vaccines and not receiving vaccination for 16-year-old girls in China who had not been previously infected with HPV.ParticipantsNot applicable.InterventionsVaccination using the 9-valent, the quadrivalent and the bivalent vaccines.Primary outcome measureIncremental costs per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) prevented.ResultsIn the base case, the incremental costs per DALY prevented were, respectively, US$35 000 and US$50 455 compared with the quadrivalent and the bivalent vaccines, both of which were above the cost-effective threshold of US$25 920/DALY prevented. To be cost-effective in these comparisons, the 9-valent vaccine should be priced at $550 and $450 for the full doses, respectively. To be highly cost-effective, the price thresholds were $435 and $335. The incremental costs per DALY prevented in relation to no vaccination was US$23 012, making the 9-valent vaccine marginally cost-effective. The results were robust in most one-way sensitivity analyses including changing vaccination age to 13 and 26 years.ConclusionsAt the current price, the 9-valent HPV vaccine is not cost-effective compared with the quadrivalent and the bivalent vaccines for young girls in China who had not been previously infected with HPV. Policymakers and clinicians should keep potential vaccine recipients informed about the economic profile of the 9-valent vaccine and carefully consider expanding its use in China at the current price.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with colony-simulating factor (CSF) when compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma undergoing curative chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6558-6558
Author(s):  
K. K. Chan ◽  
K. R. Imrie ◽  
S. M. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

6558 Background: The 2006 ASCO guideline recommends PP with CSF for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, partially based on previous cost-minimization analyses showing that CSF saved costs when compared with no CSF by reducing hospitalization from febrile neutropenia (FN) when the risk of FN was > 20%. However, these studies examined only one cycle of chemotherapy and did not account for costs of CSF in subsequent cycles, did not consider SP, and did not consider patients’ preferences. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP with SP in this setting using a Markov model for a time horizon of 8 cycles of chemotherapy with a government payer perspective. Costs were adjusted to 2006 $CAD. Ontario health economic data were used. The cost of hospitalization for FN was obtained from Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Data for efficacies of CSF, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: The base case costs for PP and SP were $22,077 and $17,641. The QALYs of PP and SP were 0.254 and 0.248. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $739,999/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that in order for PP to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization per episode of FN had to be > $31,138 (i.e. 2.5 times > base case), the cost of CSF per cycle had to be < $896 (base case = $1,960), the risk of FN in the 1st cycle had to be > 48% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with CSF had to be > 97% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all other cost, probability and utility variables. First order microsimulation showed that < 17% of simulations were cost-effective. Conclusions: PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP for this population under most assumptions. PP only becomes attractive in places where the cost of hospitalization for FN is much more than that of Ontario, or the cost of CSF is under $896 per cycle. The costs of CSF and hospitalization in all cycles (instead of just one cycle) should be accounted for in any economic evaluation of CSF. Current guidelines recommending PP in this population should be revisited. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Mori ◽  
Carolyn J. Crandall ◽  
Tomoko Fujii ◽  
David A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Vertebral Fracture ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Microsimulation Model ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Summary Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years. Purpose Teriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan. Methods Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version. Results In the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively. Conclusions Among high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

scholarly journals Detecting Germline PTEN Mutations Among At-Risk Patients With Cancer: An Age- and Sex-Specific Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (23) ◽  
pp. 2537-2544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Ngeow ◽  
Chang Liu ◽  
Ke Zhou ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
David B. Matchar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cleveland Clinic ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Cost Effective Strategy ◽  
The Cost

Purpose Cowden syndrome (CS) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by benign and malignant tumors. One-quarter of patients who are diagnosed with CS have pathogenic germline PTEN mutations, which increase the risk of the development of breast, thyroid, uterine, renal, and other cancers. PTEN testing and regular, intensive cancer surveillance allow for early detection and treatment of these cancers for mutation-positive patients and their relatives. Individual CS-related features, however, occur commonly in the general population, making it challenging for clinicians to identify CS-like patients to offer PTEN testing. Patients and Methods We calculated the cost per mutation detected and analyzed the cost-effectiveness of performing selected PTEN testing among CS-like patients using a semi-quantitative score (the PTEN Cleveland Clinic [CC] score) compared with existing diagnostic criteria. In our model, first-degree relatives of the patients with detected PTEN mutations are offered PTEN testing. All individuals with detected PTEN mutations are offered cancer surveillance. Results CC score at a threshold of 15 (CC15) costs from $3,720 to $4,573 to detect one PTEN mutation, which is the most inexpensive among the different strategies. At base-case, CC10 is the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are younger than 40 years, and CC15 is the most cost-effective strategy for female patients who are between 40 and 60 years of age and male patients of all ages. In sensitivity analyses, CC15 is robustly the most cost-effective strategy for probands who are younger than 60 years. Conclusion Use of the CC score as a clinical risk calculator is a cost-effective prescreening method to identify CS-like patients for PTEN germline testing.

PP08 Health Technology Assessment Of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Hema Mistry ◽  
Martin Connock ◽  
Pamela Royle ◽  
Norman Waugh
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
List Price ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Repair Attempts ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Introduction:Microfracture (MF) has been the main intervention in symptomatic articular cartilage knee defects. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has looked promising, but was not recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2015 due to the short-term follow-up data from trials.Methods:Most long-term data comes from observational studies. We provided new unpublished analyses to NICE based on survival data of these studies, with appropriate caveats. They included: a large ACI study by Nawaz with useful subgroup data by osteoarthritis Kellgren-Lawrence stage and previous repair attempts; a very large MF study by Layton, and a small RCT by Knutsen indicating MF was as ‘good’ as ACI. A Markov model explored the cost-effectiveness of ACI vs. MF. Different scenarios were explored: ACI or MF as a first procedure, followed by ACI or MF in those needing a second repair. A NHS England perspective was adopted. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results:The revised base-case analysis, used a list price of £16,000 (EUR 17,380 in 2013 prices) for cells, used ACI failure data from Nawaz with no previous procedures for ACI, and pooled MF failure data from two studies-Saris and Knutsen. ACI was more expensive but provided more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ACI then MF with MF then ACI was £8,000 (EUR 8,690) per QALY. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted assuming a threshold of £20,000 (EUR 21,730) per QALY: previous repair attempts reduced success of ACI (£22,000 (EUR 23,900) per QALY); reducing cell costs, ACI improved its cost-effectiveness; and limiting intervention to patients with higher Kellgren-Lawrence score did not appear cost-effectiveness.Conclusions:The final NICE guidance published in October 2017 approved the use of ACI for patients who had no previous knee repairs, for people with minimal osteoarthritic damage to the knee, and for people with articular defects of over 2cm2.

Safer and Cheaper: An Enhanced Milestone-Based Return to Play Program After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Young Athletes Is Cost-Effective Compared With Standard Time-Based Return to Play Criteria

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1100-1107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. DeFrancesco ◽  
Drake G. Lebrun ◽  
Joseph T. Molony ◽  
Madison R. Heath ◽  
Peter D. Fabricant
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Safe return to play (RTP) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is critical to patient satisfaction. Enhanced rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction with appropriate objective criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of subsequent injury. The cost-effectiveness of an enhanced RTP (eRTP) strategy relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation has not been investigated. Purpose: To determine if an eRTP strategy after ACL reconstruction is cost-effective compared with standard rehabilitation. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis. Methods: A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an eRTP strategy, which includes additional neuromuscular retraining, advanced testing, and follow-up physician visits. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions as a result of the eRTP strategy, and relevant health utilities were derived from the literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. In the base case analysis, the eRTP strategy cost was conservatively estimated to be $969 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. Completion of the eRTP strategy was considered to confer a 25% risk reduction for graft rupture in comparison with standard rehabilitation. Results: The eRTP strategy was more cost-effective than standard rehabilitation alone. Based on 1-way threshold analyses, the eRTP strategy was cost-effective as long as its additional cost over standard rehabilitation was <$2092 or the eRTP strategy decreased the incidence of contralateral ACL rupture by >13.8%. Conclusion: The eRTP strategy in this study adds additional neuromuscular retraining and additional physician follow-up—as well as advanced testing goals upon which RTP is contingent—to traditional physical therapy. Our data suggest that these additions are cost-effective, even assuming only modest associated decreases in ACL graft failure. This study also determined that the only variable that had the potential to change the cost-effectiveness conclusion based on predetermined ranges was the additional cost of rehabilitation based on 1-way sensitivity analysis. Clinical Relevance: This study provides evidence of cost-effectiveness for payers, supporting the use of enhanced RTP programs. The sensitivity analyses herein may be used to determine if any given RTP program going forward is cost-effective, regardless of the exact components of the program.

scholarly journals Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Counselling and Testing Modalities in Southern Mozambique

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Hao Choo ◽  
Elisa Lopez-Varela ◽  
Laura Fuente-Soro ◽  
Orvalho Augusto ◽  
Charfudin Sacoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Linkage To Care ◽  
Limited Resource ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Hiv Positive ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Positive Individual ◽  
Hiv Counselling And Testing ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objective: Despite the high HIV associated burden, Mozambique lacks data on HIV counselling and testing (HCT) costs. To help guide national HIV/AIDS programs, we estimated the cost per test for voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) from the patient’s perspective and the costs per person tested and per HIV-positive individual linked to care to the healthcare provider for VCT, provider-initiated counselling and testing (PICT) and home-based testing (HBT). We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of these strategies for linking patients to care.Methods: Data from a cohort study conducted in the Manhiça District were used to derive costs and linkage-to-care outcomes of the three HCT strategies. A decision tree was used to model HCT costs according to the likelihood of HCT linking individuals to care and to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of PICT and HBT with VCT as the comparator. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of base-case findings. Findings: Average and median VCT costs to the patient per individual tested were US$1.34 and US$1.08, respectively. Costs per individual tested were greatest for HBT (US$11.07), followed by VCT (US$7.79), and PICT (US$7.14). The costs per HIV-positive individual linked to care followed a similar trend. PICT was not cost-effective in comparison with VCT at a willingness-to-accept threshold of US$4.53, but only marginally given a corresponding base-case ICER of US$4.15, while HBT was dominated, with higher costs and lower impact than VCT. Base-case results for the comparison between PICT and VCT presented great uncertainty, whereas findings for HBT were robust.Conclusion: PICT and VCT are likely equally cost-effective in Manhiça. We recommend that VCT be offered as the predominant HCT strategy in Mozambique, but expansion of PICT could be considered in limited-resource areas. HBT without facilitated linkage or reduced costs is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Therapeutic options in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15154-e15154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lixian Zhong ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
Vickie Pon ◽  
Nicole Nguyen ◽  
Meghan Frear ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Baseline Severity ◽  
The Cost

e15154 Background: Initial therapy for metastatic prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy. Uniformly progression of disease occurs despite castration. Docetaxel is then the standard of care. Abiraterone (Abi) and cabazitaxel (Cab) are approved for mCRPC post docetaxel with improvements in survival We seek to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Abi and Cab compared to mitoxantrone (Mit) and prednisone for mCRPC. Methods: A decision tree model was constructed comparing four treatments for mCRPC patients over an 18 month period: 1) Abi, 2) Cab, 3) Mit, and 4) prednisone only. Chance nodes included baseline pain as a severity indicator, grade III & IV adverse events (AE) (neutropenia and cardiac ) and survival at 18mos. Survival rates and probabilities were from published data. Cost of drug regimens were based on 2010 US dollars and average wholesale price (AWP). Model cost inputs included drug-costs, administration costs, management of AE’s, radiation for pain, and costs associated with death. Health utilities for baseline pain, bone pain, neutropenia, cardiac events, and radiation were obtained from published data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted focused on baseline severity and costs of drug. Results: Base case estimates suggest that Cab and Abi are most effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Mit vs. placebo is $110K/QALY, Abi vs. Mit is $76K/QALY and for Cab vs. Abi, the ICER is $925K/QALY. Model-sensitive parameters include Abi AWP and cost of Mit side effect management; Abi becomes less cost-effective as its AWP increases, or if the cost of Mit side effect management decreases. When baseline severity increases, Mit becomes cost-effective over placebo and Abi remains cost-effective over Mit. Cab remains not cost-effective at tolerable thresholds. Conclusions: Compared to Cab, Mit, and placebo, Abi is the most cost-effective option in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patients due to its ability to prolong survival and maintain a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $100K. Despite higher survival with Cab, it is not cost-effective because of costs associated with treatment of neutropenia. In situations where illness is more severe, Abi remains the cost-effective choice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document