scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of group-based exercise to prevent falls in elderly community-dwelling people

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Scheckel ◽  
Stephanie Stock ◽  
Dirk Müller
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Older People ◽  
Fall Prevention ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Balance Training ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Clinical studies indicate that strength-balance training for active fall prevention can prevent fractures in older people. The present modelling study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of fall prevention exercise (FPE) provided to independently living older people compared to no intervention in Germany. Method We designed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a group-based FPE-program provided to independently living people ≥75 years from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Input data was obtained from public databases, clinical trials and official statistics. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented as costs per avoided hip fracture. Additionally, we performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and, estimated monetary consequences for the SHI in a budget impact analysis (BIA). Results For women, the costs per hip fracture avoided amounted to €52,864 (men: €169,805). Results of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. According to the BIA, for the reimbursement of FPE additional costs of €3.0 million (women) and €7.8 million (men) are expected for the SHI. Conclusions Group-based FPE appears to be no cost-effective option to prevent fall-related hip fractures in independently living elderly. To allow a more comprehensive statement on the cost effectiveness of FPE fracture types other than hip should be increasingly evaluated in clinical trials.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of an Exercise Programme that Provided Group or Individual Training to Reduce the Fall Risk in Healthy Community-Dwelling People Aged 65–80: A Secondary Data Analysis

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 714
Author(s):  
Isaac Aranda-Reneo ◽  
Laura Albornos-Muñoz ◽  
Manuel Rich-Ruiz ◽  
María Ángeles Cidoncha-Moreno ◽  
Ángeles Pastor-López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Older People ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Individual Training

Research has demonstrated that some exercise programs are effective for reducing fall rates in community-dwelling older people; however, the literature is limited in providing clear recommendations of individual or group training as a result of economic evaluation. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) for reducing the fall risk in healthy, non-institutionalized older people. An economic evaluation of a multicenter, blinded, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial was performed on 498 patients aged over 65 in primary care. Participants were randomly allocated to the treatment or control arms, and group or individual training. The program was delivered in primary healthcare settings and comprised five initial sessions, ongoing encouragement and support to exercise at home, and a reinforcement session after six months. Our hypothesis was that the patients who received the intervention would achieve better health outcomes and therefore need lower healthcare resources during the follow-up, thus, lower healthcare costs. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which used the timed up and go test results as an effective measure for preventing falls. The secondary outcomes included differently validated tools that assessed the fall risk. The cost per patient was USD 51.28 lower for the group than the individual sessions in the control group, and the fall risk was 10% lower when exercises had a group delivery. The OEP program delivered in a group manner was superior to the individual method. We observed slight differences in the incremental cost estimations when using different tools to assess the risk of fall, but all of them indicated the dominance of the intervention group. The OEP group sessions were more cost-effective than the individual sessions, and the fall risk was 10% lower.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate for older osteoporotic women in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Mori ◽  
Carolyn J. Crandall ◽  
Tomoko Fujii ◽  
David A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Summary Among hypothetical cohorts of older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two treatment strategies using a simulation model. Annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years was cost-saving compared with biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 3 years. Purpose Osteoporosis constitutes a major medical and health economic burden to society worldwide. Injectable treatments for osteoporosis require less frequent administration than oral treatments and therefore have higher persistence and adherence with treatment, which could explain better efficacy for fracture prevention. Although annual intravenous zoledronic acid and biannual subcutaneous denosumab are available, it remains unclear which treatment strategy represents a better value from a health economic perspective. Accordingly, we examined the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for 3 years compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate (i.e., denosumab for 3 years followed by oral weekly alendronate for 3 years, making the total treatment duration 6 years) among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan at ages 65, 70, 75, or 80 years. 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 public healthcare and long-term care payer’s perspective over a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5 million (or $47,500) per QALY. Results In the base case, zoledronic acid was cost-saving (i.e., more effective and less expensive) compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the efficacy of zoledronic acid or the cumulative persistence rate with zoledronic acid or denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective were 98–100%. Conclusions Among older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, zoledronic acid was cost-saving compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate.

scholarly journals A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (68) ◽  
pp. 1-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Squires ◽  
Edith Poku ◽  
Inigo Bermejo ◽  
Katy Cooper ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Posterior Uveitis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Intermediate Uveitis ◽  
Sham Procedure ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundNon-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.Data sourcesElectronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.Review methodsReview methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsOf the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70;p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84;p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20;p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12;p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.LimitationsThe clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.ConclusionsTwo RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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 Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of Apatinib for Advanced Metastatic Gastric Cancer from the Perspective of Health Insurance System

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongrui Bai ◽  
Yuejuan Xu ◽  
Bin Wu
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health Insurance System ◽  
Insurance System ◽  
The Cost

Objective. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of apatinib in patients with chemotherapy-refractory mGC. Patients and Methods. A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of typical patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic gastric cancer (mGC). We estimated the 10-year quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Model inputs were derived from the published literature and government sources. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese health insurance system. A scenario analysis for a Patient Assistance Programme (PAP) was performed. Results. Baseline analysis showed that apatinib increased the cost and QALYs by $7859 and 0.192, respectively, relative to conventional chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $40,997/QALY gained. When PAP was available, the ICER was $21,132/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that apatinib with PAP achieved nearly 65% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $22,200. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the utility of progression-free survival was the most influential factor on the robustness of the model. Budget impact analysis estimated that the annual increase in fiscal expenditures would be approximately 0.45 million dollars. Conclusions. Our analysis suggests that apatinib is likely cost-effective in patients with chemotherapy-refractory mGC when PAP is available.

scholarly journals Modelling the Economic Impact of Reducing Loneliness in Community Dwelling Older People in England

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1426
Author(s):  
David McDaid ◽  
A-La Park
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Older People ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Social Activities ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Health And Social Care

Loneliness has been associated with poor mental health and wellbeing. In England, a 2018 national strategy on loneliness was published, and public health guidelines recommend participation in social activities. In the absence of existing economic evidence, we modelled the potential cost effectiveness of a service that connects lonely older people to social activities against no-intervention. A 5-year Markov model was constructed from a health and social care perspective. Parameters were drawn from the literature, with the intervention structure based on an existing loneliness alleviation programme implemented in several settings across England. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. The total expected cost per participant in the intervention group is £7131 compared to £6783 in the usual care group with 0.45 loneliness free years (LFY) gained. The incremental cost per LFY gained is £768; in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis the intervention is cost saving in 3.5% of iterations. Potentially such interventions may be cost-effective but are unlikely to be cost-saving even allowing for sustained effects and cumulative adverse health and social care events averted. Empirical studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, ideally mapping changes in loneliness to the quality of life, in order to allow the key metric in health economic studies, cost per quality adjusted life year to be estimated.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine, Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens for stage III colon cancer in the French setting

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13506-13506
Author(s):  
P. R. Dufour ◽  
J. Douillard ◽  
M. Ychou ◽  
J. Seitz ◽  
G. Perrocheau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Stage Iii Colon Cancer ◽  
The Cost

13506 Background: The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is as effective but better tolerated than i.v. 5-FU/LV as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer. Costs associated with the administration route could vary widely according to national rules and medical practice. We compared costs and outcomes of capecitabine, the Mayo Clinic, and de Gramont regimens as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. Methods: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the three regimens using the third-party payer perspective, time horizon and efficacy/safety data (adjusted for indirect comparisons) from two published clinical trials [Twelves et al. N Engl J Med 2005; Andre et al. J Clin Oncol 2003]. The costs of chemotherapy and the treatment of side effects were estimated from the clinical trials and expert opinion. We applied French standard costs to resources consumed and evaluated cost-effectiveness using relapse-free survival (RFS), defined in X-ACT study, as an efficacy indicator. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed varying the cost estimates for each treatment. Results: Capecitabine-treated pts had a mean life duration increase without treatment failure of 1.3 months vs. Mayo (see table). De Gramont was considered as effective as Mayo. In the base-case analysis capecitabine appeared to be dominant, more effective and less costly than either Mayo Clinic or de Gramont. In the sensitivity analyses, capecitabine remained dominant except for the minimum costs scenario vs. de Gramont. In this case, the cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 8997.55€ per year without relapse. Conclusions: As adjuvant treatment for colon cancer, capecitabine decreases medical resources consumed, mainly in hospitals. Its approval in this setting is expected to bring cost savings and better outcomes. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

1997 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 166-169
Author(s):  
Judith O’Brien ◽  
Wendy Klittich ◽  
J. Jaime Caro
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Discharge Data ◽  
The Cost

SummaryDespite evidence from 6 major clinical trials that warfarin effectively prevents strokes in atrial fibrillation, clinicians and health care managers may remain reluctant to support anticoagulant prophylaxis because of its perceived costs. Yet, doing nothing also has a price. To assess this, we carried out a pharmacoe-conomic analysis of warfarin use in atrial fibrillation. The course of the disease, including the occurrence of cerebral and systemic emboli, intracranial and other major bleeding events, was modeled and a meta-analysis of the clinical trials and other relevant literature was carried out to estimate the required probabilities with and without warfarin use. The cost of managing each event, including acute and subsequent care, home care equipment and MD costs, was derived by estimating the cost per resource unit, the proportion consuming each resource and the volume of use. Unit costs and volumes of use were determined from established US government databases, all charges were adjusted using cost-to-charge ratios, and a 3% discount rate was applied to costs incurred beyond the first year. The proportions of patients consuming each resource were estimated by fitting a joint distribution to the clinical trial data, stroke outcome data from a recent Swedish study and aggregate ICD-9 specific, Massachusetts discharge data. If nothing is done, 3.2% more patients will suffer serious emboli annually and the expected annual cost of managing a patient will increase by DM 2,544 (1996 German Marks), from DM 4,366 to DM 6,910. Extensive multiway sensitivity analyses revealed that the higher price of doing nothing persists except for very extreme combinations of inputs unsupported by literature or clinical standards. The price of doing nothing is thus so high, both in health and economic terms, that cost-consciousness as well as clinical considerations mandate warfarin prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document