Cost-effectiveness of three years of adjuvant imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 137-137
Author(s):  
Myrlene Sanon ◽  
Anju Parthan ◽  
Douglas Taylor ◽  
John Coombs ◽  
Marc Paolantonio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Imatinib Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Adjuvant Imatinib ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years

137 Background: Recent clinical trial data have demonstrated that 3 years (yr) of adjuvant imatinib therapy for patients with surgically resected GIST leads to a significant improvement in recurrence free survival and overall survival vs. 1 yr of therapy. The objective of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of treating with 3 yrs vs. 1 yr of adjuvant imatinib in the US from a payer’s perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to predict GIST recurrence, treatment (txt) costs, and quality-adjusted survival over a lifetime horizon. Patients transitioned between 3 health states: recurrence free GIST, GIST recurrence, and death. Monthly recurrence and mortality rates for 3 yr and 1 yr imatinib were derived from SSGXVIII/AIO clinical trial. The 5-yr recurrence rate observed in the trial was extrapolated for the remaining duration of the model horizon. First recurrence after active txt was treated with imatinib 400mg daily (800mg daily if recurrence during active txt). For subsequent disease progression, patients were treated with imatinib 800mg, sunitinib or best supportive care. After 5 years, txt specific mortality rate was applied for patients with recurrence. Costs and utilities were derived from published literature. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for each txt strategy. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per yr. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Total lifetime cost per patient was $302,100 with 3 yrs vs. $217,800 for 1 yr of imatinib therapy. Patients on 3 yrs of imatinib had higher QALYs (8.53 vs 7.18) vs. 1yr of imatinib. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio of 3 yrs of imatinib vs 1 yr of imatinib was $62,600/QALY. Model results were sensitive to rate of GIST recurrence beyond 5 yrs and monthly cost of adjuvant imatinib. At a threshold of $100,000/QALY, 3 yr imatinib therapy was cost-effective in 100% of simulations vs. 1 yr of imatinib. Conclusions: Model results suggest that treating patients with 3 yrs of imatinib is cost-effective vs. 1 yr of imatinib below the widely used $100,000/QALY threshold. Both clinical and economic results suggest treating surgically resected GIST patients with 3 yrs of imatinib would result in improved quality-adjusted and overall survival.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fourth- or Further-Line Ripretinib in Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weiting Liao ◽  
Huiqiong Xu ◽  
David Hutton ◽  
Qiuji Wu ◽  
Kexun Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Stromal Tumors ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Health State Utilities

BackgroundThe INVICTUS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of ripretinib compared with placebo in the management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors.MethodWe used a Markov model with three health states: progression-free disease, progression disease and death. We parameterized the model from time-to-event data (progression-free survival, overall survival) of ripretinib and placebo arms in the INVICTUS trial and extrapolated to a patient’s lifetime horizon. Estimates of health state utilities and costs were based on clinical trial data and the published literature. The outcomes of this model were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was tested via univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe base-case model projected improved outcomes (by 0.29 QALYs) and additional costs (by $70,251) and yielded an ICER of $244,010/QALY gained for ripretinib versus placebo. The results were most sensitive to progression rates, the price of ripretinib, and health state utilities. The ICER was most sensitive to overall survival. When overall survival in the placebo group was lower, the ICER dropped to $127,399/QALY. The ICER dropped to $150,000/QALY when the monthly cost of ripretinib decreased to $14,057. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that ripretinib was the cost-effective therapy in 41.1% of simulations at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000.ConclusionAs the fourth- or further-line therapy in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors, ripretinib is not cost-effective in the US. Ripretinib would achieve its cost-effectiveness with a price discount of 56% given the present effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-utility Analysis of Second-generation Direct-acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdollah Poursamad ◽  
Zahra Goudarzi ◽  
Iman Karimzadeh ◽  
Nahid Jallaly ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Genotype 1 ◽  
Medication Regimen ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Medication Therapy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Study Results

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) can lead to increased mortality, disability, and liver transplantation if left untreated, and it is associated with a possible increase in disease burden in the future, all of which would surely have a significant impact on the health system. New antiviral regimens are effective in the treatment of the disease yet expensive. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of three medication regimens, namely, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, and daclatasvir/sofosbuvir (DCV/SOF) for HCV patients with genotype 1 in Iran. Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to predict the costs and outcomes of the three mentioned medication therapy strategies. The final outcome of the study was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which was obtained using the previously published studies. The study was conducted from the perspective of the Health Ministry; therefore, only direct medical costs were estimated. The results were provided as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY. Ultimately, the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to measure the strength of study results. Results: The results showed that the QALYs for LDV/SOF, DCV/SOF, and VEL/SOF were 13.25, 13.94, and 14.61, and the costs were 4,807, 7,716, and 4,546$, respectively. The VEL/SOF regimen had lower costs and higher effectiveness than the LDV/SOF and DCV/SOF regimens, making it a dominant strategy. The tornado diagram results showed that the study results had the highest sensitivity to chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) state costs. Moreover, the scatter plots showed that the VEL/SOF was the dominant therapeutic strategy in 73% of the simulations compared to LDV/SOF and 66% of the simulations compared to DCV/SOF; moreover, it was in the acceptable region in 92% of the simulations and below the threshold. Therefore, it was considered the most cost-effective strategy. Moreover, the results showed that DCV/SOF was in the acceptable region below the threshold in 69% of the simulations compared to LDV/SOF. Therefore, the DCV/SOF regimen was more cost-effective than LDV/SOF. Conclusions: According to the present study results, it is suggested that the VEL/SOF regimen be used as the first line of therapy in patients with HCV genotype 1. Moreover, DCV/SOF can be the second-line medication regimen.

PD30 Cost-Effectiveness Of Stereo-Electroencephalography For Refractory Epilepsy

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 139-140
Author(s):  
Borja Garcia-Lorenzo ◽  
Tasmania del Pino-Sedeño ◽  
Maria M. Trujillo-Martin ◽  
Rodrigo Alberto Rocamora Zuniga ◽  
Juan Erviti López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Refractory Epilepsy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Epileptogenic Zone ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction:Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) has been shown to be a valuable tool for the anatomo-electroclinic definition of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in some patients with medically refractory epilepsy considered for surgery. In Spain, many of those patients are not offered this diagnostic procedure. The objective of our health technology assessment (HTA) report was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of SEEG to define the EZ in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery compared to no SEEG intervention (i.e. remaining with further antiepileptic drugs).Methods:We undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness and safety of SEEG. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals for a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results:The EZ was found in 92 percent of patients who underwent SEEG, 72 percent were eligible for epilepsy surgery and 33 percent were free of seizures after surgery (47 percent of those who received surgery). Any complications related to insertion and monitoring of SEEG and the subsequent intervention occurred in 1.3 percent of patients. In the base case analysis, SEEG led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,368 (USD 12,217) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were robust.Conclusions:SEEG is a cost-effective technology in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery when compared to no SEEG intervention.

scholarly journals Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 00333-2021
Author(s):  
Alan Martin ◽  
Dhvani Shah ◽  
Kerigo Ndirangu ◽  
Glenn A Anley ◽  
Gabriel Okorogheye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThe IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 μg). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a United Kingdom National Health Service perspective.MethodsPatient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters.ResultsCompared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs; discounted), and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup reflecting patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline.ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20703-e20703
Author(s):  
Ashley Kim ◽  
Beth Devine ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tumor Expression ◽  
The Cost

e20703 Background: Trial results from KEYNOTE-407 have recently led to the FDA approval for pembrolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (pembrolizumab+chemo) in previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC. This is the only first-line indication for squamous NSCLC regardless of tumor expression status. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combination therapy in this setting from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from KEYNOTE-407, we developed a partitioned survival decision model to estimate the lifetime costs and effectiveness of pembrolizumab+chemo vs. chemo alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC. The base case used a Weibull curve selected based on minimum AIC/BIC and best graphical fit to extrapolate in-trial survival to a lifetime horizon. First- and second-line therapy resource use and adverse event (AE) rates were derived from KEYNOTE-407. Utility data and AE management were obtained from published literature and national sources. Direct medical costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. We estimated life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab+chemo resulted in 0.51 more LYs, 0.36 more QALYs, and $233,246 in healthcare costs vs. chemo alone. Costs per LY and QALY gained were $216,180 and $309,004, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to survival and pre-progression utility inputs. In a threshold analysis, we found that the cost of pembrolizumab+chemo would need to be reduced by 24% per course of therapy ($176,175) in order to be cost-effective at $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: Based on current available data, our analysis suggests first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapy in metastatic squamous NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to implied willingness to pay in cancer in the U.S. (ie < $150,000 per QALY). Future studies should reassess cost-effectiveness as trial data mature.

Cost-effectiveness of novel antiandrogens (AAs) for treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5583-5583
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Abdulaali Almutairi ◽  
Daenielle K. Lang ◽  
Noureen Asghar ◽  
Anum Riaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Support Unit ◽  
Medication Costs ◽  
Life Years

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

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]

scholarly journals Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective strategy in high-disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis patients in Iran

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nayyereh Ayati ◽  
Lora Fleifel ◽  
Mohammad Ali Sahraian ◽  
Shekoufeh Nikfar
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
High Disease Activity ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Background: Cladribine tablets are the foremost oral immune-reconstitution therapy for high disease activity relapsing multiple sclerosis (HDA-RMS). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cladribine tablets compared to natalizumab in patients with HDA-RMS in Iran. Methods: A 5-year cohort-based Markov model was developed with 11 expanded disability status score (EDSS) health states, including patients with HDA-RMS as on and off-treatment. All costs were identified from the literature and expert opinion and were measured in Iranian Rial rates, changed to the 2020 USD rate and were discounted by 7.2%. Quality adjusted life years (QALY), discounted by 3.5%, and life years gained (LYG) were adopted to measure efficacy. The final results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that was compared to a national willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1 to 3 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (D/PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty. Results: Cladribine tablets dominated natalizumab and yielded 6,607 USD cost-saving and 0.003 additional QALYs per patient. LYG was comparable. The main cost component was drug acquisition cost in both arms. DSA indicated the sensitivity of the results to the cost discount rates and also the patients’ body weight; while they were less sensitive to the main clinical variables. PSA indicated that cladribine tablets were cost-effective in Iran, with a probability of 57.5% and 58.6% at lower and higher limits of threshold, respectively. Conclusion: Cladribine tablets yielded higher QALYs and lower costs compared to natalizumab, in patients with HDA-RMS in Iran.

Cost-effectiveness of mobile health-based integrated care for atrial fibrillation: Model development and data analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueyan Luo ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Quan Yuan ◽  
Han Lai ◽  
Chunji Huang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mhealth Technology

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mhealth) technology is increasingly used in disease management. Using mhealth tools to integrate and streamline care was found to improve atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical and health economic outcomes of mhealth-based integrated care for AF from the perspective of a public healthcare provider in China. METHODS A Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of mhealth-based care and usual care in a hypothetical cohort of AF patients in China. The time horizon was 30 years with monthly cycles. Model outcomes measured were direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, mhealth-based care gained higher QALYs of 0.0818 with an incurred cost of USD1,778. Using USD33,438 per QALY (three times gross domestic product) as the willingness-to-pay threshold, mhealth-based care was cost-effective, with an ICER of USD21,739 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis found compliance to mhealth-based care had the greatest impact on the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mhealth-based care was accepted as cost-effective in 80.91% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS This study suggested that the use of mhealth technology in streamlining and integrating care for AF patients was cost-effective in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document