scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
César Augusto Guevara-Cuellar ◽  
María Paula Rengifo-Mosquera ◽  
Elizabeth Parody-Rúa
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

Abstract Background Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Methods We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18–60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer’s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. Conclusions LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer’s perspective in the Colombian health system.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nonoperative Management Versus Open and Laparoscopic Surgery for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis in Colombia.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesar Augusto Guevara-Cuellar ◽  
María Paula Rengifo-Mosquera ◽  
Elizabeth Parody-Rúa
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis

Abstract BackgroundTraditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. In consequence it is necessary to evaluate the efficiency of the different therapeutic alternatives in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA in the Colombian health system. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than a one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsLA presents a lower cost ($ 363±35) than OA ($ 384±41) and NOM ($392±44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332±0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310± 0.057) and OA (3.3261±0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24 000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.ConclusionsLA is more likely to produce more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA in uncomplicated AA. This feature becomes the most efficient alternative as long as the conditions for its adequate performance exist. However, NOM may be a more acceptable alternative from the patient's perspective or when only the OA option is available.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of whole area testing of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in Merthyr Tydfil, 2020: A Modelling and economic analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Drakesmith ◽  
Brendan Collins ◽  
Kelechi Nnoaham ◽  
Angela Jones ◽  
Daniel Rhys Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

Objectives: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of an asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 whole area testing pilot. Design: Epidemiological modelling and cost effectiveness analysis. Setting: The community of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough between20 Nov and 21 Dec 2020. Participants: A total of 33,822 people tested as part of the pilot in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough, 712 of whom tested positive by lateral flow test and reported being asymptomatic. Main outcome measures: Estimated number of cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths prevented, and associated costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and monitory cost to the healthcare system. Results: An initial conservative estimate of 360 (95% CI: 311 - 418) cases were prevented by the mass testing, representing a would-be reduction of 11% of all cases diagnosed in Merthyr Tydfil residents during the same period. Modelling healthcare burden estimates that 24 (16 - 36) hospitalizations, 5 (3 - 6) ICU admissions and 15 (11 - 20) deaths were prevented, representing 6.37%, 11.1% and 8.19%, respectively of the actual counts during the same period. A less conservative, best-case scenario predicts a much higher number of cases prevented of 2328 (1761 - 3107), representing 80% reduction in would-be cases. Cost effectiveness analysis indicates 108 (80 - 143) QALYs gained, an incremental cost ratio of &#163 2,143 (&#163 860-&#163 4,175) per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of &#163 6.2m (&#163 4.5m-&#163 8.4m). In the less conservative scenario, the net monetary benefit increases to &#163 15.9m (&#163 12.3m-&#163 20.5m). Conclusions: A significant number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths were prevented by the mass testing pilot. Considering QALYs lost and healthcare costs avoided, the pilot was cost-effective. These findings suggest mass testing with LFDs in areas of high prevalence (>2%) is likely to provide significant public health benefit. It is not yet clear whether similar benefits will be obtained in low prevalence settings.

scholarly journals Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Smith-Palmer ◽  
O. R. Leeuwenkamp ◽  
J. Virk ◽  
N. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. Results For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial nonoperative management versus emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute complicated appendicitis in Japan

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyoaki Sugiura ◽  
Keiichi Suzuki ◽  
Tomoshige Umeyama ◽  
Kenshi Omagari ◽  
Takeo Hashimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Nonoperative Management ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Complicated Appendicitis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background: Although evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management is growing, the best treatment strategy for acute complicated appendicitis remains controversial. In this study, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of operative management with emergency laparoscopic appendectomy (ELA) alone as the first-line therapy in complicated appendicitis patients in a municipal hospital in Japan.Methods: We constructed a Markov model to compare treatment strategies for complicated appendicitis with emergency laparoscopic appendectomy in otherwise-healthy adults. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model variables were abstracted from a literature review, and from data from the hospital records of Tochigi Medical Center. Uncertainty surrounding model parameters was assessed via one-way- and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses. Threshold analysis was performed using the willingness-to-pay threshold set at the World Health Organization's criterion of ¥12 million.Results: Operative management cost ¥677,570 per patient. Nonoperative management without interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) cost ¥109,257 more than operative management and produced only 0.005 more QALYs. Nonoperative management without ILA cost ¥26,049 more than operative management, and also yielded only 0.005 additional QALYs. The ICER for both nonoperative managements were > ¥12 million/QALY in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Conclusions : Nonoperative management with ILA and Nonoperative management without ILA were not cost-effective strategies compared with operative management to treat complicated appendicitis. Operative management remains the standard of care, but nonoperative management deserves serious consideration as a treatment option in complicated appendicitis.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

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.

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document