Smoking Cessation therapy is a cost-effective intervention to avoid tooth loss in Brazilian subjects with periodontitis: an economic evaluation

Abstract Background Smokers present a higher prevalence and severity of periodontitis and, consequently, higher prevalence of tooth loss. Smoking cessation improves the response to periodontal treatment and reduces tooth loss. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency in resources allocation when implementing smoking cessation therapy vs. its non-implementation in smokers with periodontitis. Methods We adopted the Brazilian public system perspective to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per tooth loss avoided) and cost-utility (cost per oral-related quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained) of implementing smoking cessation therapy. Base-case was defined as a 48 years-old male subject and horizon of 30 years. Effects and costs were combined in a decision analytic modeling framework to permit a quantitative approach aiming to estimate the value of the consequences of smoking cessation therapy adjusted for their probability of occurrence. Markov models were carried over annual cycles. Sensitivity analysis tested methodological assumptions. Results Implementing the therapy saved approximately US$ 100 over the time horizon accompanied by a slightly better effect, both in CEA and CUA. Considering uncertainties, the therapy could be cost-effective in the most part of simulated cases, even being cheaper and more effective in 35% of cases in which the oral-health related outcome is used as effect. Considering a willingness-to-pay of US$100 per health effect, smoking cessation therapy was cost-effective, respectively, in 72% and 99% of cases in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions Implementation of smoking cessation therapy may be cost-effective, considering the avoidance of tooth loss and oral health-related consequences to patients.

Download Full-text

Smoking Cessation Therapy is a Cost-Effective Intervention to Avoid Tooth Loss in Subjects With Periodontitis – An Economic Evaluation

10.21203/rs.3.rs-228724/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Maria Luisa Silveira Souto ◽

Fernanda Campos Almeida Carrer ◽

Mariana Minatel Braga ◽

Cláudio Mendes Pannuti

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Oral Health ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Tooth Loss ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Health Related ◽

Per Oral ◽

Smoking Cessation Therapy

Abstract Background: Smokers present a higher prevalence and severity of periodontitis and, consequently, higher prevalence of tooth loss. Smoking cessation improves the response to periodontal treatment and reduces tooth loss. So, the aim of this study was evaluated the efficiency in resources allocation when implementing smoking cessation therapy vs. its non-implementation in smokers with periodontitis. Methods: We adopted the Brazilian public system perspective to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per tooth loss avoided) and cost-utility (cost per oral-related quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained) of implementing smoking cessation therapy. Base-case was defined as a 48 years-old male subject and horizon of 30 years. Effects and costs were combined in a decision analytic modeling framework to permit a quantitative approach aiming to estimate the value of the consequences of smoking cessation therapy adjusted for their probability of occurrence. Markov models were carried over annual cycles. Sensitivity analysis tested methodological assumptions. Results: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy had an average incremental cost of U$60.58 per tooth loss avoided and U$4.55 per oral related-QALY gained. Considering uncertainties, the therapy could be cost-effective in the most part of simulated cases, even being cheaper and more effective in 53% of cases in which the oral-health related outcome is used as effect. Considering a willingness-to-pay of US$100 per health effect, smoking cessation therapy was cost-effective, respectively, in 81% and 100% of cases in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy may be cost-effective, considering the avoidance of tooth loss and oral health-related consequences to patients.

Download Full-text

The cost-utility of a care coordination/home telehealth programme for veterans with diabetes

Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare ◽

10.1258/135763307781644843 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 13 (6) ◽

pp. 318-321 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Tracey E Barnett ◽

Neale R Chumbler ◽

W Bruce Vogel ◽

Rebecca J Beyth ◽

Patricia Ryan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Care Coordination ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Home Telehealth ◽

Before And After ◽

Related Quality ◽

Health Related ◽

The Cost

We examined the cost-effectiveness of a care coordination/home telehealth (CCHT) programme for veterans with diabetes. We conducted a retrospective, pre-post study which compared data for a cohort of veterans ( n=370) before and after the introduction of the CCHT programme for two periods of 12 months. To assess the cost-effectiveness, we converted the patients' health-related quality of life data into Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) utility scores and used costs to construct incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The overall mean ICER for the programme at one-year was &dollar;60,941, a value within the commonly-cited range of cost-effectiveness of &dollar;50,000–100,000. The programme was cost-effective for one-third of the participants. Characteristics that contributed to cost-effectiveness were marital status, location and clinically relevant co-morbidities. By targeting the intervention differently in future work, it may become cost-effective for a greater proportion of patients.

Download Full-text

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

Canadian Urological Association Journal ◽

10.5489/cuaj.6376 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 14 (8) ◽

Author(s):

Anna Parackal ◽

Jean-Eric Tarride ◽

Feng Xie ◽

Gord Blackhouse ◽

Jennifer Hoogenes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Time Horizon ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Economic Evaluations ◽

Base Case ◽

Robot Assisted ◽

Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽

Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.8043 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 8043-8043

Author(s):

Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽

Daniel Arku ◽

Neda Alrawashdh ◽

Briana Choi ◽

Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

The Other ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Treatment Comparison ◽

Comparative Cost ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽

10.1177/1460408617738810 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 45-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Maxwell S Renna ◽

Cristiano van Zeller ◽

Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽

Cherlyn Tong ◽

Jasmine Gambini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Cost Utility Analysis ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

One Year ◽

Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

Download Full-text

Abstract 202: Cost-effectiveness Of Carotid Stenting In Canada

Stroke ◽

10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.a202 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 44 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Mohammed Almekhlafi ◽

Fiona Clement ◽

Michael D Hill

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Carotid Stenting ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Minor Stroke ◽

System Perspective ◽

Symptomatic Carotid ◽

Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis ◽

Procedural Costs

BACKGROUND To estimate the cost-effectiveness of carotid stenting (CAS) compared to endarterectomy (CEA) in symptomatic patients. METHODS A cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health system perspective was performed using a Markov analytic model. Clinical estimates were based on a recent meta-analysis. Procedural costs for CAS and CEA were derived from a local cohort. The costs for hospitalization and rehabilitation for minor and major strokes were based on the Burden of Ischemic Stroke (BURST) study. Utility scores were based on SAPPHIRE trial. A Monte Carlo simulation using a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the model assumptions and uncertainties. RESULTS CAS was more expensive (incremental cost of $6106.84) and had a lower effectiveness (- 0.12 QALYs). The model was sensitive to the risk of annual death. At a threshold odds ratio (OR) of 0.85, CAS was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $32,839.04. Using estimates from SAPPHIRE trial, CAS dominated CEA. When estimates from CREST or EVA-3S trials were used, CEA dominated CAS. Only after simultaneously reducing CAS costs and risks of periprocedural and annual minor strokes, CAS had a favorable ICER. This was achieved at a threshold CAS procedural cost of $4350, a threshold OR of periprocedural minor stroke of 1, and a threshold OR of annual minor stroke of 1.15or less; resulting in an ICER of $577.5. The figure shows CAS cost-effectiveness plane. CONCLUSIONS In this analysis, CAS was associated with higher costs and lower effectiveness compared to CEA in symptomatic carotid stenosis patients. The results were driven by the costs of periprocedural major and minor stroke. The costs associated with MI did not impact the results. For CAS to be more effective, it needs to be performed in patients with longer survival, in patients at a high surgical-risk, or at a lower procedural costs plus lower rates of periprocedural and annual minor strokes.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: an early economic evaluation

Canadian Liver Journal ◽

10.3138/canlivj-2021-0011 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. e20210011

Author(s):

Chanh-Phong Tran ◽

John J Kim ◽

Jordan J Feld ◽

William WL Wong

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Drug Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Decompensated Cirrhosis ◽

Obeticholic Acid ◽

Potential Cost ◽

Alcoholic Steatohepatitis ◽

Early Results

Background: Currently, there are no pharmacological options available for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In the 18-month interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REGENERATE), early results demonstrated that obeticholic acid (OCA) 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis with no worsening of NASH among patients with NASH and fibrosis compared to placebo (PBO). This study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of OCA compared to PBO in NASH patients. Methods: A state-transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing two treatment strategies, PBO and OCA 25 mg, from a Canadian public payer perspective. The model time horizon was lifetime with annual cycle lengths. Cost and utility parameters were discounted at 1.5% annually. The efficacy data were obtained from the REGENERATE trial, and costs and utilities were derived from other published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: Treatment with OCA led to reductions of 3.58% in decompensated cirrhosis cases, 3.95% in hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.88% in liver transplant, and 6.01% in liver-related death. However, at an annual price of CDN$36,000, OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $815,514 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). An 88% reduction in drug price to an annual cost of $4,300 would make OCA cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusions: OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO, despite demonstrating clinical benefits due to a high drug cost. A significant price reduction would be needed to make the drug cost-effective.

Download Full-text

Associations of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life with Age, Oral Status, and Oral Function among Psychiatric Inpatients in Japan: a cross-sectional study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-34255/v4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Satoru Haresaku ◽

Fuyuko Nakashima ◽

Yayoi Hara ◽

Madoka Kuroki ◽

Hisae Aoki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Oral Health ◽

Tooth Loss ◽

Psychiatric Patients ◽

Psychiatric Inpatients ◽

Age Group ◽

Health Related Quality ◽

Swallowing Function ◽

Related Quality ◽

Health Related

Abstract Background As the general population of Japan ages, the population of hospitalized psychiatric patients is also ageing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) with age and oral health, including oral and swallowing function, among psychiatric inpatients. Methods The subjects included 165 psychiatric inpatients in psychiatric hospitals in Japan. The General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) and the Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) were included in the questionnaire survey for the measurement of OHRQoL and the screening of dysphagia. A score ≥3 on the EAT-10 was defined as suspected dysphagia. Oral examinations and oral diadochokinesis (ODK) measurements for the tongue-lip motor function evaluation were conducted. The inpatients with acute psychiatric symptoms, moderate and severe dementia, and cognitive impairment that affected their ability to communicate and relate their feelings were excluded. A chi-squared test, the Mann-Whitney U test, and linear regression analysis were used for the analysis. The data were analysed at the 5% significance level. Results A total of 100 (64.5%) psychiatric inpatients (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 14.5] years, 49% males, and 51% females) participated in this study. The means±SDs for the decayed missing filled teeth (DMFT) index and GOHAI score were 20.6±6 and 49.7±7.9, respectively. The GOHAI score in the older age group (≥65 years) was significantly lower than that in the younger age group (<65 years). The mean ODK scores were less than 3 times/sec for all syllables. The percentage of the participants with suspected dysphagia was 45.0%. Tooth loss and suspected dysphagia were significantly associated with low GOHAI scores. The EAT-10 score was significantly correlated with the GOHAI score only after adjusting for age and sex (β=-0.725, 95% CI:-0.97, -0.64). Conclusions In hospitalized psychiatric patients, impaired oral health in the older subjects was more pronounced compared with that among general adults. Tooth loss and swallowing function were associated with OHRQoL. Therefore, oral care for the recovery of occlusal and swallowing functions may be needed to improve OHRQoL among psychiatric patients.

Download Full-text

The COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF FOUR CHELATION REGIMENS FOR Β-THALASSEMIA MAJOR: A CHINESE PERSPECTIVE

Mediterranean Journal of Hematology and Infectious Diseases ◽

10.4084/mjhid.2020.029 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. e2020029

Author(s):

Jialian Li

Keyword(s):

Healthcare System ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Thalassemia Major ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Base Case ◽

Chinese Government ◽

System Perspective ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Markov Decision Model ◽

The Cost

Background: The four most commonly used chelation regimens for β-thalassemia major patients in China are a combination therapy of deferoxamine and deferiprone (DFO+DFP), deferoxamine(DFO) monotherapy, deferiprone(DFP) monotherapy and deferasirox(DFX) monotherapy. Such patients use iron chelators their whole lives, resulting in enormous treatment costs. This study analyses the cost-utility of these four regimens from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov decision model was used over a 70-year time horizon and was populated using clinical data from a systematic literature review. We obtained utility data from local and previous research. Costs were estimated using Chinese national sources. Results: From the base-case analysis results, DFP was the most cost-effective chelation regimen, followed by DFO+DFP, DFO and DFX. DFP had a 99.60%, 78.10% and 64.40% likelihood of being cost-effective versus DFX, DFO and DFO+DFP, respectively, at a payment threshold of 193,932.00 CNY/QALY. Conclusions: DFP was the most cost-effective chelation regimen for β-thalassemia major patients, followed by DFO+DFP, DFO and DFX. Using DFP as the primary treatment regimen may potentially result in cost-savings and QALY gains for the Chinese healthcare system. To increase these benefits, the Chinese government and clinicians should lower drug costs, increase drug utility and reduce mortality and morbidity. Changes in influential parameters easily affect the results of DFO+DFP versus DFP and of DFP versus DFO; clinicians should focus on such parameters and adjust the regimens accordingly.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035224 ◽

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.

Download Full-text