scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of imrecoxib compared with diclofenac for patients with osteoarthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueshan Sun ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
Xiaoqian Hu ◽  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
ShuYan Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Pump Inhibitor ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Medical Database ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background To estimate the cost -utility of imrecoxib compared with diclofenac, as well as the addition of a proton pump inhibitor to both two treatment strategies, for patients with osteoarthritis, from a Chinese healthcare perspective. Methods A Markov model was built. Costs of managing osteoarthritis and initial adverse events were collected from a Medical Database which collected information from 170 hospitals. Other parameters were obtained from the literature. Subgroup analyses were conducted for people at high risk of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular adverse events. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Imrecoxib was highly cost-effective than diclofenac (the ICER was $401.58 and $492.77 in patients at low and high gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk, respectively). The addition of a proton pump inhibitor was more cost -effective compared with single drug for both treatment strategies. Findings remained robust to sensitivity analyses. 59.04% and 57.16% probability for the co-prescription of imrecoxib and a proton pump inhibitor to be the most cost-effective strategy in all patients considered using the cost-effectiveness threshold of $30,000. Conclusions The addition of a proton pump inhibitor to both imrecoxib and diclofenac was advised. Imrecoxib provides a valuable option for patients with osteoarthritis. Uncertainties existed in the model, and the suggestions can be adopted with caution.

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

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

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

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Maria Fea ◽  
Francesco Cattel ◽  
Stefano Gandolfi ◽  
Giorgio Buseghin ◽  
Gianluca Furneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Istent Inject ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Glaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods Simulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. Results Results of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions The results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective.

OP56 Rehabilitation Of Memory In Brain Injury: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 20-21
Author(s):  
Shaun Harris ◽  
Deborah Fitzsimmons ◽  
Roshan das Nair ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty ◽  
Memory Rehabilitation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction:People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments which are persistent, debilitating, and reduce quality of life. As part of the Rehabilitation of Memory in Brain Injury trial, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken to examine the comparative costs and effects of a group memory rehabilitation program for people with TBI.Methods:Individual-level cost and outcome data were collected. Patients were randomized to usual care (n=157) or usual care plus memory rehabilitation (n=171). The primary outcome for the economic analysis was the EuroQol-5D quality of life score at 12 months. A UK NHS costing perspective was used. Missing data was addressed by multiple imputation. One-way sensitivity analyses examined the impact of varying different parameters, and the impact of available cases, on base case findings whilst non-parametric bootstrapping examined joint uncertainty.Results:At 12 months, the intervention was GBP 26.89 (USD 35.76) (SE 249.15) cheaper than usual care; but this difference was statistically non-significant (p=0.914). At 12 months, a QALY loss of −0.007 was observed in the intervention group confidence interval (95% CI: −0.025–0.012) and a QALY gain seen in the usual care group 0.004 (95% CI: -0.017–0.025). This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.442). The base case analysis gave an ICER of GBP 2,445 (USD 3,252) reflecting that the intervention was less effective and less costly compared to usual care. Sensitivity analyses illustrated considerable uncertainty. When joint uncertainty was examined, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20,000 per QALY gain was 29 percent and 24 percent at GBP 30,000.Conclusions:Our cost-utility analysis indicates that memory rehabilitation was cheaper but less effective than usual care but these findings must be interpreted in the light of small statistically non–significant differences and considerable uncertainty was evident. The ReMemBrIn intervention is unlikely to be considered cost-effective for people with TBI.

scholarly journals A One-Year Economic Evaluation of Six Alternative Strategies for the Management of Uninvestigated Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Canadian Primary Care

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 489-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan N Barkun ◽  
Ralph Crott ◽  
Carlo A Fallone ◽  
Wendy A Kennedy ◽  
Jean Lachaine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Proton Pump Inhibitor ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Management Approaches ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Relevant Range ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting.METHODS: The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined.RESULTS: Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most cost-effective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values.CONCLUSIONS: Although no strategy was the indisputable cost-effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choice over a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Brue ◽  
Philippe Chanson ◽  
Patrice Rodien ◽  
Brigitte Delemer ◽  
Delphine Drui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Somatostatin Analogues ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Efficient Treatment ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveEfficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients.MethodsA Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsThe incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.ConclusionFGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

scholarly journals Staff training in positive behaviour support for behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability: cost-utility analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial

BJPsych Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Maree Hunter ◽  
Victoria Vickerstaff ◽  
Michaela Poppe ◽  
Andre Strydom ◽  
Michael King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staff Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Positive Behaviour Support ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Background Behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability is associated with higher healthcare, social care and societal costs. Although behavioural therapies are widely used, there is limited evidence regarding the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Aims We aimed to assess the incremental cost per QALY gained of therapist training in positive behaviour support (PBS) and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU using data from a cluster randomised controlled trial (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT01680276). Method We conducted a cost-utility analysis (cost per QALY gained) of 23 teams randomised to PBS or TAU, with a total of 246 participants followed up over 36 months. The primary analysis was from a healthcare cost perspective with a secondary analysis from a societal cost perspective. Results Over 36 months the intervention resulted in an additional 0.175 QALYs (discounted and adjusted 95% CI −0.068 to 0.418). The total cost of training in and delivery of PBS is £1598 per participant plus an additional cost of healthcare of £399 (discounted and adjusted 95% CI −603 to 1724). From a healthcare cost perspective there is an 85% probability that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU at a £30 000 willingness to pay for a QALY threshold. Conclusions There was a high probability that training in PBS is cost-effective as the cost of training and delivery of PBS is balanced out by modest improvements in quality of life. However, staff training in PBS is not supported given we found no evidence for clinical effectiveness.

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

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

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

VP53 Cost-Utility Analysis: Adalimumab Verus Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis – Brazil

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 171-172
Author(s):  
Grazielle Silva ◽  
Juliana Alvares ◽  
Eli Iola Andrade ◽  
Mariangela Cherchiglia ◽  
Augusto Guerra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Tnf Alpha ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost

INTRODUCTION:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease of unknown etiology that usually results in joint lesions and physical incapacitation. RA treatment includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), synthetic (sDMARD) and/or biologics (bDMARD). In this study we carried out a cost-utility analysis comparing Adalimumab (ADA) versus Etanercept (ETA), with or without synthetic DMARDs (± sDMARD).METHODS:Effectiveness measures used were the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) obtained from an open prospective cohort study with Brazilian RA patients. Costs were obtained from a historical cohort composed of every patient who was prescribed medicines to treat RA in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. A public sector perspective was adopted. The Markov model included six-month cycles, time horizon of 5 years and 5 percent discount rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying costs and outcome values.RESULTS:There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two bDMARDs. Treatment with ETA (± sDMARD) was more expensive after 5 years of follow-up: incremental cost of USD28,210.87. Overall, treatment with ADA (± sDMARD) was more cost-effective: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ETA (± sDMARD) was USD79,148.34/ QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that this was sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD).CONCLUSIONS:Currently two Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha (anti-TNF alpha) medicines – ADA and ETA are available within the Brazilian public health system in addition to infliximab. Treatment with ADA (±sDMARD) was more cost-effective with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ETA (±sDMARD) at USD79,148.34 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that outcomes are sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD) treatment. Overall, both therapeutic alternatives are valuable from the public sector perspective especially when the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines are properly applied in patients no longer responding to treatment. Alternatives are needed as some patients will respond differently to different anti-TNF alpha medicines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document