scholarly journals The cost-utility of school-based first permanent molar sealants programs: a Markov model

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerardo Espinoza-Espinoza ◽  
Gilda Corsini ◽  
Rubén Rojas ◽  
Rodrigo Mariño ◽  
Carlos Zaror
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Permanent Molar ◽  
School Based ◽  
Permanent Molars ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Mean Cost

Abstract Background Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of school-based first permanent molar sealants programs is not yet fully conclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of school-based prevention programs for the application of sealants in molars of schoolchildren compared with non-intervention. Methods A cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model was carried out using probability distribution. The utility was measured in quality-adjusted tooth years (QATY). The assessment was carried out from the public payer’s perspective with a six-year time horizon. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Only direct costs were evaluated, expressed in Chilean pesos (CLP) at 7th May at 2019 values (exchange rate USD = CLP 681.09). Univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis were carried out. Results After a six-year follow up, the cost of sealing all first permanent molars was found to be higher than non-intervention, with a mean cost difference of USD 1.28 (CLP 875) per molar treated. The “seal all” strategy was more effective than non-intervention, generating 0.2 quality-adjusted tooth years more than non-intervention. The ICUR of the “seal all” strategy compared to non-intervention was USD 6.48 (CLP 4,412) per quality-adjusted tooth years. The sensitivity analysis showed that the increase in caries was the variable which most influenced the ICUR. Conclusions A school-based sealant program is a cost-effective measure in populations with a high prevalence of caries.

Cost Utility of Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Monitoring for the Management of Children Asthma

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendia ◽  
Rannery Acuña ◽  
carlos rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Nitric Oxide ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Asthma Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
The Cost

Abstract IntroductionFractional exhaled nitric oxide is a simple, non-invasive measurement of airway inflammation with minimal discomfort to the patient and with results available within a few minutes. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring in patients between 4 and 18 years of age.Methods A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-utility of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring versus asthma management without using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring (standard therapy) in patients between 4 and 18 years of age. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on asthma from a tertiary center, in Medellin, Colombia, while probabilities of the Markov model and utilities were obtained from the systematic review of published randomized clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective.ResultsThe model showed that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was associated with a lower total cost than standard therapy (US $1,333 vs. US $1,452 average cost per patient) and higher QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.92 average per patient). The probability that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for all willingness-to-pay thresholds.Conclusion Asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was cost-effective for treating patients between 4 and 18 years of age with mild to moderate allergic asthma. Our study suggests evidence that could be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines, but this should be replicated in different clinical settings.

scholarly journals Cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b infection in China

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035224
Author(s):  
Haoya Yun ◽  
Guoqiang Zhao ◽  
Xiaojie Sun ◽  
Lizheng Shi
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Direct Acting Antivirals ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) compared with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Chinese patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV).DesignA Markov model was developed to estimate the disease progression of patients with HCV over a lifetime horizon from the healthcare system perspective. Efficacy, clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the published literature. Drug costs were from the market price survey, and health costs for Markov health states were sourced from a Chinese study. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of input parameters on the results.InterventionsSOF/VEL was compared with sofosbuvir+ribavirin (SR), sofosbuvir+dasabuvir (SD), daclatasvir+asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) and elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR).Primary and secondary outcomesCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs).ResultsSOF/VEL was economically dominant over SR and SD. However, 3D was economically dominant compared with SOF/VEL. Compared with DCV/ASV, SOF/VEL was cost-effective with the ICUR of US$1522 per QALY. Compared with EBR/GZR, it was not cost-effective with the ICUR of US$369 627 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of SOF/VEL to the lower value of CI resulted in dominance over EBR/GZR and 3D. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 3D was cost-effective in 100% of iterations in patients with genotype (GT) 1b and SOF/VEL was not cost-effective.ConclusionsCompared with other oral DAA agents, SOF/VEL treatment was not the most cost-effectiveness option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b in China. Lower the price of SOF/VEL will make it cost-effective while simplifying treatment and achieving the goal of HCV elimination.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Xin Sun ◽  
Bin Cui ◽  
Shan-Shan Cao ◽  
Qi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Ru-Yi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed.Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used.Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (−187017.543, −284,674.922, and −9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (−216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV.Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Von Willebrand Disease Screening in Adolescents with Menorrhagia.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 2476-2476
Author(s):  
Robert F. Sidonio ◽  
Kenneth J Smith ◽  
Margaret V. Ragni
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Von Willebrand Disease ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Analytic Model ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Von Willebrand

Abstract Abstract 2476 Poster Board II-453 Introduction: It is unknown whether it is cost effective to screen adolescents with menorrhagia for von Willebrand disease (VWD) prior to starting oral contraceptive pills (OCPs). Because OCPs can mask a diagnosis of VWD, a woman is at risk for potential future traumatic or surgical bleeding, once OCPs are stopped. We, therefore, designed a decision analysis model to evaluate the cost utility of VWD testing in adolescents with menorrhagia. Methods: A 20-year Markov decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate the cost-utility of two strategies: testing or not testing for VWD. The hypothetical patient is a 15-year-old female presenting with menorrhagia and a decision regarding VWD testing is made. The model includes probabilities of remaining well, suffering an acute menorrhagia bleeding event, surgical complications, OCP complications or dying. Probabilities, costs and utilities were estimated from published literature. The prevalence of type 1 VWD in adolescent females with menorrhagia was estimated to be 13%. We assumed all patients were treated with OCPs regardless of whether hemostatic testing was performed. All patients were assumed to have mild type I VWD, the most common subtype, and all were responsive to intravenous DDAVP. Probabilities of surgical complications in patients with and without VWD were based on adenotonsillectomy hemorrhage rates in children. The probability of acute menorrhagia bleeding necessitating hospitalization or red blood cell transfusion was estimated to be 1% in an adolescent with VWD and 0% in an adolescent with normal hemostatic testing. The sole complication from OCPs incorporated into this decision analytic model was acute deep vein thrombosis. Results: The cost of testing adolescents with menorrhagia for VWD was $1,638, vs. $1,251 for not testing for VWD. The effectiveness of not testing in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (14.237 QALY) was similar to the VWD testing strategy (14.246 QALY). Compared to not testing for VWD, screening for VWD had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY of $45,061/QALY, a value typically considered economically reasonable. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the outcome and ICER were most sensitive to the probabilities of an acute bleeding event, surgical complication, and the prevalence of VWD. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, substituting input distributions rather than a single point estimate for the probabilities, costs and utilities, was also performed. Under this assumption, testing for VWD is a cost-effective strategy approximately 60% of the time when the cost-effectiveness threshold is $100,000/QALY. Conclusions: It is cost effective to perform VWD testing in adolescents presenting with menorrhagia prior to initiating OCPs. This is related to avoiding cost from postoperative and other bleeding when the diagnosis is masked by OCPs. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Cost utility analysis of end stage renal disease treatment in Ministry of Health dialysis centres, Malaysia: hemodialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naren Kumar Surendra ◽  
Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf ◽  
Lai Seong Hooi ◽  
Sunita Bavanandan ◽  
Fariz Safhan Mohamad Nor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Dialysis Modality ◽  
Ministry Of Health ◽  
The Cost

AbstractOBJECTIVESIn Malaysia, there is exponential growth of patients on dialysis. Dialysis treatment consumes a considerable portion of healthcare expenditure. Comparative assessment of their cost effectiveness can assist in providing a rational basis for preference of dialysis modalities.METHODSA cost utility study of hemodialysis (HD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) was conducted from a Ministry of Health (MOH) perspective. A Markov model was also developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of increasing uptake of CAPD to 55% and 60 % versus current practice of 40% CAPD in a five-year temporal horizon. A scenario with 30% CAPD was also measured. The costs and utilities were sourced from published data which were collected as part of this study. The transitional probabilities and survival estimates were obtained from the Malaysia Dialysis and Transplant Registry (MDTR). The outcome measures were cost per life year (LY), cost per quality adjusted LY (QALY) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the Markov model. Sensitivity analyses were performed.RESULTSLYs saved for HD was 4.15 years and 3.70 years for CAPD. QALYs saved for HD was 3.544 years and 3.348 for CAPD. Cost per LY saved was RM39,791 for HD and RM37,576 for CAPD. The cost per QALY gained was RM46,595 for HD and RM41,527 for CAPD. The Markov model showed commencement of CAPD in 50% of ESRD patients as initial dialysis modality was very cost-effective versus current practice of 40% within MOH. Reduction in CAPD use was associated with higher costs and a small devaluation in QALYs.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest provision of both modalities is fiscally feasible; increasing CAPD as initial dialysis modality would be more cost-effective.

scholarly journals Cost utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring for the management of children asthma

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendía ◽  
Ranniery Acuña-Cordero ◽  
Carlos E. Rodriguez-Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Nitric Oxide ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Asthma Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Introduction Fractional exhaled nitric oxide is a simple, non-invasive measurement of airway inflammation with minimal discomfort to the patient and with results available within a few minutes. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring in patients between 4 and 18 years of age. Methods A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-utility of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring versus asthma management without using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring (standard therapy) in patients between 4 and 18 years of age. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on asthma from a tertiary center, in Medellin, Colombia, while probabilities of the Markov model and utilities were obtained from the systematic review of published randomized clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective. Results The model showed that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was associated with a lower total cost than standard therapy (US $1333 vs. US $1452 average cost per patient) and higher QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.92 average per patient). The probability that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for all willingness-to-pay thresholds. Conclusion Asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was cost-effective for treating patients between 4 and 18 years of age with mild to moderate allergic asthma. Our study suggests evidence that could be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines, but this should be replicated in different clinical settings.

scholarly journals Cost utility analysis of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone treatment for hospitalised COVID-19 patients - a hypothetical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Carta ◽  
Claudio Conversano
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Care Costs

Abstract Background Sars-Cov-2 is a novel corona virus associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are two treatments that have shown to be effective against the Sars-Cov-2 associated disease. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis of the two treatments is still lacking. Objective The cost-utility of Remdesivir, Dexamethasone and a simultaneous use of the two drugs with respect to standard of care for treatment Covid-19 hospitalized patients is evaluated, together with the effect of Remdesivir compared to the base model but based on alernative assumptions. Methods A decision tree for an hypothetical cohort of Covid-19 hospitalized patients, from an health care perspective and a one year horizon is specified. Efficacy data are retrieved from a literature review of clinical trials, whilst costs and utility are obtained from other published studies. Results Remdesivir, if health care costs are related to the days of hospitalization, is a cost saving strategy. Dexamethasone is cost effective with an ICER of <DOLLAR/>5208/QALY, and the concurrent use of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone is the most favorable strategy for higher level of willingness to pay thresholds. Moreover, if Remdesivir has a positive effect on mortality the utility is three times higher respect to base case. Whereas, if health care costs are not related to the length of patient hospitalization Remdesivir has an ICER respect to standard of care of <DOLLAR/>384412.8/QALY gained, which is not cost effective. We also find that Dexaamethasone is cost effective respect to standard care if we compute the cost for live saved with an ICER of <DOLLAR/>313.79 for life saved. The uncertainty of the model parameters is also tested through both a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion We find that the use of Remdesivir and/or Dexamethasone is effective from an economic standpoint.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy in Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Kondo ◽  
Tomoya Tachi ◽  
Takayoshi Sakakibara ◽  
Jun Kato ◽  
Takahito Mizuno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Antiemetic Therapy ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Olanzapine has been shown to have an additive effect on the three-drug antiemetic therapy, consisting of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone, in a highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Although olanzapine may be more economical than aprepitant or palonosetron, an adequate cost-efficacy analysis has not been conducted. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine in four-drug antiemetic therapy among Japanese patients.Methods We simulated model patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and developed a decision-analytical model of patients receiving triple antiemetic therapy with or without olanzapine. The cost, probabilities, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment were calculated from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare payer. The threshold ICER was set at 45,867 United States dollars (USD) (5 million Japanese yen) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The probabilities, utility value, and other costs were obtained from published sources. The robustness of this model was validated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results The calculated ICER was 5,156 USD/QALY, which was below the threshold. Under the set conditions, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% probability that olanzapine was cost-effective. Based on the one-way sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of olanzapine below 10.78 USD placed the ICER below the threshold. Conclusion Olanzapine was cost-effective in the four-drug antiemetic therapy for Japanese patients treated with highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer in Guangzhou, southern China: a Markov simulation analysis based on natural community screening results

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e049581
Author(s):  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Hai-lin Li ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Yu-ting Gu ◽  
Ying-ru Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different primary screening strategies: high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) alone, single immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT), double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening compared with no screening using the Markov model.MethodsTreeage Pro V.2011 software was used to simulate the Markov model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, was used to reflect the cost-effectiveness of the CRC screening method. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used for parameter uncertainty.ResultsAll strategies had greater effectiveness because they had more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than no screening. When the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared with no screening. The double iFOBT strategy was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies because it had the most QALYs and the least cost. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity of low-risk adenoma, compliance with colonoscopy and primary screening cost were the main influencing factors comparing single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT with no screening. However, within the scope of this study, there was no fundamental impact on cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the WTP was ¥435 762/QALY, the probabilities of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve with HRFQ alone, single iFOBT, double iFOBT and HRFQ+double iFOBT were 0.0%, 5.3%, 69.3% and 25.4%, respectively.ConclusionsAll screening strategies for CRC were cost-effective compared with no screening strategy. Double iFOBT was the best-buy option compared with all other strategies. The significant influencing factors were the sensitivity of low-risk polyps, compliance with colonoscopy and cost of primary screening.

scholarly journals OP0198-HPR A STRUCTURED MODEL FOR OA CARE IN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE IS A COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO USUAL CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH HIP AND KNEE OA

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
N. Østerås ◽  
E. Aas ◽  
T. Moseng ◽  
L. Van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
K. Dziedzic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document