Cost-Utility Analysis of Primary Prophylaxis Versus Secondary Prophylaxis With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Elderly Patients With Diffuse Aggressive Lymphoma Receiving Curative-Intent Chemotherapy

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1064-1071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelvin K.W. Chan ◽  
Eric Siu ◽  
Murray D. Krahn ◽  
Kevin Imrie ◽  
Shabbir M.H. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Purpose The 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline recommended primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) instead of secondary prophylaxis (SP) for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PP when compared with SP. Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP to SP for diffuse aggressive lymphoma. We used a Markov model with an eight-cycle chemotherapy time horizon with a government-payer perspective and Ontario health, economic, and cost data. Data for efficacies of G-CSF, probabilities, and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses (willingness-to-pay threshold = $100,000/QALY) showed that if PP were to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.5 × > base case), the cost of G-CSF per cycle less than $960 (base case = $1,960), the risk of first-cycle FN more than 47% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with G-CSF more than 91% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all variables. PSA revealed a 10% probability of PP being cost-effective over SP at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusion PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP in this population. PP becomes attractive only if the cost of hospitalization for FN is significantly higher or the cost of G-CSF is significantly lower.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Nivolumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A cost-utility analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18331-e18331
Author(s):  
Jacques Raphael ◽  
Zhuolu Sun ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
David M Naimark
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

e18331 Background: Nivolumab was recently shown to improve overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life compared to Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients previously treated with antiangiogenic therapies (CheckMate-025 trial). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Methods: To evaluate the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus, a Markov cohort model that incorporated data from the phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial and other sources was developed. The outcomes of interest were healthcare costs, life-months and quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) gained with Nivolumab as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the incremental net monetary benefit. A lifetime time horizon was used in the base case with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually. The probabilities of progression and death from cancer and utility values were captured from the CheckMate-025 trial. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses (SAs) were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results: Compared to Everolimus, treatment with Nivolumab provided an additional 3.9 QALMs at an incremental cost of 33,386 Canadian dollars (CAD). The resulting ICER was 8,608CAD per QALM gained. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000CAD per Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ( = 4,167CAD per QALM), Nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case. In one-way SAs, Nivolumab cost, median OS and treatment duration on Nivolumab were sensitive to changes with plausible threshold values. Assuming a WTP of 100,000CAD per QALY ( = 8,334CAD per QALM) and a scenario of Nivolumab cost with no drug wastage, Nivolumab became a cost-effective strategy with an ICER of 7,881CAD per QALM. Conclusions: With its current price , Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with Everolimus for previously treated mRCC patients from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective. While mRCC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from Nivolumab, considerations should be given to reduce drug wastage and increase the WTP threshold to render this strategy more affordable.

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 two minimally-invasive surgical techniques for operable oropharyngeal cancer: Transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enea Parimbelli ◽  
Federico Soldati ◽  
Lorry Duchoud ◽  
Gian Luca Armas ◽  
John R. de Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Transoral Robotic Surgery ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Base Case Analysis ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Decision Analytical Model ◽  
The Cost

AbstractImportanceTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser micro-surgery (TLM) are two different but competing minimally invasive techniques to surgically remove operable oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers (OPSCC). As of now, no comparative analysis as to the cost-utility of these techniques exists.ObjectiveRecent population-level data suggest for TORS and TLM equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, need for adjuvant chemoradiation, and learning curves. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare TORS and TLM from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view using a decision-analytical model from a Swiss hospital perspective.DesignOur decision-analytical model combines decision trees and a Markov model to compare TORS and TLM strategies. Model parameters were quantified using available literature, original cost data from two Swiss university tertiary referral centers, and utilities elicited directly from a Swiss population sample using standard gamble. C/U and sensitivity analyses were used to generate results and gauge model robustness.SettingSwiss hospital perspectiveInterventionCost-utility analysisMain outcome measureComparative cost-utility data from TLM and TORSResultsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment (pTorsAlone>0.407), whereby in an interval between 55%-62% (pTorsAlone 0.38-0.45) cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Also, exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.ConclusionTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters i.e. the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.Key pointsQuestionCompare cost-utility of TORS versus TLMFindingsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55%-62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.MeaningTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document