scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. Methods A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40–44 and 45–49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50–69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40–44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65–69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40–49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan LI ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of one-time standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for esophageal cancer (EC) in China. Methods: A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups in five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with an annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN); and (3) one-time endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness of the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: One-time screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy for individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49 years, which saved USD 10,942.57 and USD 6,611.73 per QALY gained compared to nonscreening strategy. For those aged 50-69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. One-time screening without follow-up was the extended dominated strategy. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the screening strategies with follow-up were more cost-effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals aged 40-44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals aged 65-69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions: One-time EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40-49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan LI ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background : This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining for EC (esophageal cancer) screening in China. Methods : A Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Individuals aged 40 to 69 years were classified into six age groups according to five-year intervals. Three different strategies were adopted for each cohort: (1) no screening; (2) endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with annual follow-up for low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia; and (3) endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) indicated the effectiveness . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluating indicator. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results : Screening with follow-up was the undominated strategy, which saved USD 10942.57 and USD 6611.73 for individuals aged 40-44 and 45-49 years, respectively, per QALY gained. For those aged 50-69 years, the nonscreening scenarios were undominated. Screening without follow-up were extended dominated strategies. Compared to screening strategies without follow-up, all the follow-up strategies were found to be cost effective, with the ICER increasing from 299.57 USD/QALY for individuals 40-44 years to 1617.72 USD/QALY for individuals 65-69 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions : EC screening with follow-up targeting individuals aged 40-49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Modeling the Cost-effectiveness of Esophageal Cancer Screening in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuanyuan LI ◽  
Lingbin Du ◽  
Youqing Wang ◽  
Yuxuan Gu ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Lugol’S Iodine ◽  
Iodine Staining ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of the standard endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining in EC screening in China. Methods The Markov decision analysis model with eleven states was built. Separate cohorts were conducted consisting of those aged 40 to 69 years, classified as six age groups with five years interval. Three different strategies assumed for each cohort:(1) no screening; (2) endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining with annual follow-up for Low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia; (3) endoscopic screening with Lugol’s iodine staining without follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) served as effectiveness. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was identified as the evaluating indicators. Sensitivity analysis was introduced to assess the robustness of the model. Results For aged 40-49 years, the non-screening strategies were absolutely dominated with both more costs and less QALY, while for aged 50-69 years, the screening scenarios were absolutely dominated. Screening with follow-up was the preferred strategy. Compared to non-screening, screening with follow-up saved USD 10942.57 and USD 611.73 per QALY gained for aged 40-44 and 45-49 years separately. One-way sensitivity analysis addressed that the risk ratio of the EC incidence in population after screening compared to people without screening and the utility of precancerous lesion could affect the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategy. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the results of the base case analysis. Conclusions EC screening with follow-up targeting aged 40-49 years was the most cost-effective strategy.

scholarly journals Effect and cost-effectiveness of national gastric cancer screening in Japan: a microsimulation modeling study

BMC Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsi-Lan Huang ◽  
Chi Yan Leung ◽  
Eiko Saito ◽  
Kota Katanoda ◽  
Chin Hur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Endoscopic Screening ◽  
Screening Guidelines ◽  
Screening Strategies ◽  
Gastric Cancer Screening ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background A national endoscopic screening program for gastric cancer was rolled out in Japan in 2015. We used a microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of current screening guidelines and alternative screening strategies in Japan. Methods We developed a microsimulation model that simulated a virtual population corresponding to the Japanese population in risk factor profile and life expectancy. We evaluated 15 endoscopic screening scenarios with various starting ages, stopping ages, and screening intervals. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Cost-effective screening strategies were determined using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were done to explore model uncertainty. Results Using the threshold of $50,000 per QALY, a triennial screening program for individuals aged 50 to 75 years was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,665. Compared with no endoscopic screening, this strategy is predicted to prevent 63% of gastric cancer mortality and confer 27.2 QALYs gained per 1000 individuals over a lifetime period. Current screening guidelines were not on the cost-effectiveness efficient frontier. The results were robust on one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions This modeling study suggests that the endoscopic screening program in Japan would be cost-effective when implemented between age 50 and 75 years, with the screening repeated every 3 years. These findings underscore the need for further evaluation of the current gastric cancer screening recommendations.

scholarly journals Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness of Trametinib Plus Dabrafenib as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutated Melanoma in China

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guojun Sun ◽  
Jingwen Wang ◽  
Xiaoying Zhou ◽  
Zhichao Hu ◽  
Zuojun Dong
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Melanoma Patients ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Treatment with trametinib plus dabrafenib for patients exhibiting metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma has been approved in China.Method: We developed a Markov model to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of trametinib plus dabrafenib against vemurafenib. Information on clinical situations, the rate of adverse reactions, follow-up treatments, and estimated transition probabilities were derived from the results of a clinical trial that compared treatment with trametinib plus dabrafenib against vemurafenib alone. A one-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the influence of uncertainty on the key model.Result: Treatment with trametinib plus dabrafenib for one patient in the treatment period was estimated to cost CNY 332 294, and yield a total gain of 16.6 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Compared with vemurafenib, treatment involving trametinib plus dabrafenib yielded additional 3.96 QALYs, resulting in a unit cost-effectiveness of CNY 27 460 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the results are reliable.Conclusion：From the perspective of China's health system, applying China's per-capita GDP in 2020 as the threshold of willingness-to-pay, it is cost-effective to treat metastatic melanoma patients exhibiting BRAF V600 mutation with dabrafenib plus trametinib.

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 Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic analysis based on a randomised, open-label, phase III trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e038867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenxiu Xin ◽  
Haiying Ding ◽  
Qilu Fang ◽  
Xiaowei Zheng ◽  
Yinghui Tong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Platinum Resistant ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPembrolizumab was recently demonstrated to have survival benefit in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/mHNSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in China remains uncertain.ObjectiveThis analysis aimed to describe the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus standard-of-care (SOC) therapy in r/mHNSCC in China.DesignA Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab with SOC in platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were collected from the KEYNOTE-040 trial, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Cost data were acquired for the payer’s perspective in China. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties surrounding model parameters.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).ResultsThe total mean cost of pembrolizumab and SOC was US$45 861 and US$41 950, respectively. As for effectiveness, pembrolizumab yielded 0.31 QALYs compared with 0.25 QALYs for SOC therapy. The ICER for pembrolizumab versus SOC was US$65 186/QALY, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of US$28 130/QALY in China. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that utility values for progressive state, probability from stable to progressive in the SOC group, as well as cost of pembrolizumab were the three most influential variables on ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that standard therapy was more likely to be cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab at a WTP value of US$28 130/QALY. Results were robust across both univariate analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsPembrolizumab is not likely to be a cost-effective strategy compared with SOC therapy in patients with platinum-resistant r/mHNSCC in China.Trial registration numberNCT02252042; Post-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Yuki Seo ◽  
Takayuki Takahashi ◽  
Hideyuki Tokura ◽  
Yasuhiro Ito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Method Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated. Results TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

scholarly journals Addition of Flucytosine to Fluconazole for the Treatment of Cryptococcal Meningitis in Africa: A Multicountry Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinevimbo Shiri ◽  
Angela Loyse ◽  
Lawrence Mwenge ◽  
Tao Chen ◽  
Shabir Lakhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cryptococcal Meningitis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Immunodeficiency Virus ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Costing Analysis ◽  
Very High

Abstract Background Mortality from cryptococcal meningitis remains very high in Africa. In the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa (ACTA) trial, 2 weeks of fluconazole (FLU) plus flucytosine (5FC) was as effective and less costly than 2 weeks of amphotericin-based regimens. However, many African settings treat with FLU monotherapy, and the cost-effectiveness of adding 5FC to FLU is uncertain. Methods The effectiveness and costs of FLU+5FC were taken from ACTA, which included a costing analysis at the Zambian site. The effectiveness of FLU was derived from cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients, managed in respects other than drug therapy, as were participants in ACTA. FLU costs were derived from costs of FLU+5FC in ACTA, by subtracting 5FC drug and monitoring costs. The cost-effectiveness of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed uncertainties and a bivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the impact of varying mortality and 5FC drug costs on the ICER. Results The mean costs per patient were US $847 (95% confidence interval [CI] $776–927) for FLU+5FC, and US $628 (95% CI $557–709) for FLU. The 10-week mortality rate was 35.1% (95% CI 28.9–41.7%) with FLU+5FC and 53.8% (95% CI 43.1–64.1%) with FLU. At the current 5FC price of US $1.30 per 500 mg tablet, the ICER of 5FC+FLU versus FLU alone was US $65 (95% CI $28–208) per life-year saved. Reducing the 5FC cost to between US $0.80 and US $0.40 per 500 mg resulted in an ICER between US $44 and US $28 per life-year saved. Conclusions The addition of 5FC to FLU is cost-effective for cryptococcal meningitis treatment in Africa and, if made available widely, could substantially reduce mortality rates among human immunodeficiency virus–infected persons in Africa.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document