Assessing the value of cemiplimab for adults with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC): A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19397-e19397
Author(s):  
Eleanor Paul ◽  
Andreas Kuznik ◽  
Sam Keeping ◽  
Chieh-I Chen ◽  
Medha Sasane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Death ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Programmed Cell Death ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
The Cost

e19397 Background: Cemiplimab is a high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized, monoclonal antibody that potently blocks the interactions of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) with programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) and PD-L2. In September 2018, cemiplimab-rwlc became the first systemic therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with advanced CSCC ineligible for curative surgery or radiotherapy. In a single-arm Phase II study (NCT02760498), cemiplimab demonstrated substantial antitumor activity, durable responses, and acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced CSCC. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced CSCC from a US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review (SLR), which was supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. The clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on the individual patient data from the cemiplimab Phase II trial, whereas for SOC, the analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via the SLR (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon using parametric functions consistent with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices. Results: In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $99,024 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372,425 and 3.76, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD $150,000 per QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 91% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in ICERs ranging from $90,326 to $147,944. Conclusions: Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Mori ◽  
Carolyn J. Crandall ◽  
Tomoko Fujii ◽  
David A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Vertebral Fracture ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Microsimulation Model ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Summary Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years. Purpose Teriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan. Methods Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version. Results In the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively. Conclusions Among high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

Cost-effectiveness of thrombectomy in patients with minor stroke and large vessel occlusion: effect of thrombus location on cost-effectiveness and outcomes

2022 ◽  
pp. neurintsurg-2021-018375
Author(s):  
Mihir Khunte ◽  
Xiao Wu ◽  
Andrew Koo ◽  
Seyedmehdi Payabvash ◽  
Charles Matouk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Minor Stroke ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Large Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Vessel Occlusion ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) to treat large vessel occlusion (LVO) in patients with acute, minor stroke (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) <6) and impact of occlusion site.MethodsA Markov decision-analytic model was constructed accounting for both costs and outcomes from a societal perspective. Two different management strategies were evaluated: EVT and medical management. Base case analysis was done for three different sites of occlusion: proximal M1, distal M1 and M2 occlusions. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsBase-case calculation showed EVT to be the dominant strategy in 65-year-old patients with proximal M1 occlusion and NIHSS <6, with lower cost (US$37 229 per patient) and higher effectiveness (1.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), equivalent to 537 days in perfect health or 603 days in modified Rankin score (mRS) 0–2 health state. EVT is the cost-effective strategy in 92.7% of iterations for patients with proximal M1 occlusion using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100 000/QALY. EVT was cost-effective if it had better outcomes in 2%–3% more patients than intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in absolute numbers (base case difference −16%). EVT was cost-effective when the proportion of M2 occlusions was less than 37.1%.ConclusionsEVT is cost-effective in patients with minor stroke and LVO in the long term (lifetime horizon), considering the poor outcomes and significant disability associated with non-reperfusion. Our study emphasizes the need for caution in interpreting previous observational studies which concluded similar results in EVT versus medical management in patients with minor stroke due to a high proportion of patients with M2 occlusions in the two strategies.

Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) for Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Results from a Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 2649-2649
Author(s):  
Steve Schey ◽  
Sujith Dhanasiri ◽  
Dawn Lee ◽  
Lars Sternas ◽  
Xin Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Employment Equity ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background: Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease, placing a significant burden on patients (pts), families, and healthcare systems. Bortezomib (BORT) and IMiDs® immunomodulatory agents (thalidomide and lenalidomide [LEN]) have improved progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, and overall survival (OS). However, over time, nearly all pts become refractory which greatly impacts prognosis (median OS, 3-9 mos). In the absence of approved treatments, guidelines recommend clinical trials or retreatment with agents that were previously effective, but published data in the appropriate pt population for current care (CC) options are limited to those from small, observational, early-phase studies. There is a need for newer effective treatments; however, access is increasingly being determined by the demonstration of both clinical and economic value. POM + LoDEX demonstrated a significant OS benefit vs. high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in the pivotal phase 3 MM-003 study (San Miguel, Lancet Oncol, 2013). POM + LoDEX has EU approval in RRMM pts in whom BORT and LEN failed. Objective: Explore the cost-effectiveness of POM + LoDEX vs. CC from a UK and Ireland healthcare payer perspective. Methods: A de novo pharmacoeconomic evaluation was conducted to compare costs and outcomes of POM + LoDEX to CC in the UK and Ireland. CC included BORT retreatment (intravenous [IV] or subcutaneous), LEN (oral), and bendamustine (IV) regimens. Efficacy data were sourced from MM-003 and 2 observational studies: a dataset for CC (Gooding, 2013; n = 30 pts primarily treated with BORT, bendamustine, or LEN; 100% received prior BORT and LEN) and a dataset for BORT + LEN (Jimenez-Zepeda, 2013; n = 30, 80% received prior BORT, 73% prior LEN). Validation of the approach and all model assumptions was achieved through extensive clinical and health economic expert consultation and by comparing comparator arm outcomes from observational data to the MM-003 (HiDEX) control arm data. The health economic model used a partitioned survival structure with OS and PFS parametric curves fitted to the datasets to estimate the number of pts at each time point expected to be preprogression, postprogression, or dead. Time to treatment failure curves were estimated to allow treatment discontinuation modelling. EQ-5D data, collected as part of MM-003, were used to inform quality of life (QOL) weights. A utility regression equation was developed to account for important covariates and allow utility to vary over time. The economic evaluation included the cost of treatment, administration, monitoring, tests, adverse events (AEs), blood transfusions, concomitant medication, and terminal care. Costs are presented in US dollars using an exchange rate of 0.74 per € and 0.58 per £. Costs and outcomes were modeled to estimate cost per life year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Results: In the base-case analysis, POM + LoDEX was associated with a total incremental cost of $59,250 per pt over a lifetime horizon compared with CC (Table 1). Pts who receive POM + LoDEX are predicted to live for a mean of 2.2 years, compared with 1.2 years with CC. This represents an additional 0.6 QALYs. The model predicts a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $100,920/QALY compared with CC, while the probabilistic ICER obtained through 1000 probabilistic model runs was consistent at $101,947/QALY. Table 1 : Base-Case Cost-Effectiveness Results Model Results POM + LoDEX CC Difference Clinical outcomes Median OS, mos 12.7 5.5 7.2 Mean predicted life-years (over a pt lifetime) 2.2 1.2 1.0 QALYs 1.3 0.7 0.6 Cost outcomes, US dollars Medication and administration $84,698 $29,880 $54,818 Monitoring $8230 $4489 $3741 AE management (outpatient visits and hospitalization) $7135 $6444 $691 Total $100,063 $40,813 $59,250 ICER—Cost/LY $58,112 ICER—Cost/QALY $100,920 Conclusion: There are limited alternative treatment options available in the UK and Ireland for RRMM pts. None have a proven effect on survival leaving pts to face potentially ineffective retreatments. End-of-life drugs that significantly improve survival and QOL and address unmet need can be considered to be cost-effective at a higher “willingness to pay” threshold. POM, an oral therapy with significant PFS, survival, and QOL with a known safety profile, is likely to be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. Disclosures Dhanasiri: Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lee:Celgene Corp: Consultancy. Sternas:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yu:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zaki:Celgene Corp: Employment, Equity Ownership. Elvidge:Celgene Corp: Consultancy.

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.

scholarly journals Cytomegalovirus Screening in Pregnancy: A Cost-Effectiveness and Threshold Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (07) ◽  
pp. 678-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Albright ◽  
Erika F. Werner ◽  
Brenna L. Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Universal Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Design Decision ◽  
Intervention Effectiveness ◽  
Behavioral Counseling ◽  
The Cost ◽  
In Pregnancy

Objective To determine threshold cytomegalovirus (CMV) infectious rates and treatment effectiveness to make universal prenatal CMV screening cost-effective. Study Design Decision analysis comparing cost-effectiveness of two strategies for the prevention and treatment of congenital CMV: universal prenatal serum screening and routine, risk-based screening. The base case assumptions were a probability of primary CMV of 1% in seronegative women, hyperimmune globulin (HIG) effectiveness of 0%, and behavioral intervention effectiveness of 85%. Screen-positive women received monthly HIG and screen-negative women received behavioral counseling to decrease CMV seroconversion. The primary outcome was the cost per maternal quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Results In the base case, universal screening is cost-effective, costing $84,773 per maternal QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, universal screening is cost-effective only at a primary CMV incidence of more than 0.89% and behavioral intervention effectiveness of more than 75%. If HIG is 30% effective, primary CMV incidence can be 0.82% for universal screening to be cost-effective. Conclusion The cost-effectiveness of universal maternal screening for CMV is highly dependent on the incidence of primary CMV in pregnancy. If efficacious, HIG and behavioral counseling allow universal screening to be cost-effective at lower primary CMV rates.

Abstract 200: Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan L Limone ◽  
William L Baker ◽  
Craig I Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Newer Anticoagulants ◽  
The Cost

Background: A number of new anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) have gained regulatory approval or are in late-stage development. We sought to conduct a systematic review of economic models of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for SPAF. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment database along with the Tuft’s Registry through October 10, 2012. Included models assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (150mg, 110mg, sequential), rivaroxaban or apixaban for SPAF using a Markov model or discrete event simulation and were published in English. Results: Eighteen models were identified. All models utilized a lone randomized trial (or an indirect comparison utilizing a single study for any given direct comparison), and these trials were clinically and methodologically heterogeneous. Dabigatran 150mg was assessed in 9 of models, dabigatran 110mg in 8, sequential dabigatran in 9, rivaroxaban in 4 and apixaban in 4. Adjusted-dose warfarin (either trial-like, real-world prescribing or genotype-dosed) was a potential first-line therapy in 94% of models. Models were conducted from the perspective of the United States (44%), European countries (39%) and Canada (17%). In base-case analyses, patients typically were at moderate-risk of ischemic stroke, initiated anticoagulation between 65 and 73 years of age, and were followed for or near a lifetime. All models reported cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and while 22% of models reported using a societal perspective, no model included costs of lost productivity. Four models reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a newer anticoagulant (dabigatran 110mg (n=4)/150mg (n=2); rivaroxaban (n=1)) vs. warfarin above commonly reported willingness-to-pay thresholds. ICERs (in 2012US$) vs. warfarin ranged from $3,547-$86,000 for dabigatran 150mg, $20,713-$150,000 for dabigatran 110mg, $4,084-$21,466 for sequentially-dosed dabigatran and $23,065-$57,470 for rivaroxaban. In addition, apixaban was demonstrated to be an economically dominant strategy compared to aspirin and to be dominant or cost-effective ($11,400-$25,059) vs. warfarin. Based on separate indirect treatment comparison meta-analyses, 3 models compared the cost-effectiveness of these new agents and reported conflicting results. Conclusions: Cost-effectiveness models of newer anticoagulants for SPAF have been extensively published. Models have frequently found newer anticoagulants to be cost-effective, but due to the lack of head-to-head trial comparisons and heterogeneity in clinical characteristic of underlying trials and modeling methods, it is currently unclear which of these newer agents is most cost-effective.

scholarly journals P14.12 The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii68-iii69
Author(s):  
X Armoiry ◽  
P Auguste ◽  
C Dussart ◽  
J Guyotat ◽  
M Connock
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Survival Model ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND The addition of novel therapy “Tumor-Treating fields” (TTF) to standard radio-chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) has recently shown superiority over conventional TMZ regimen in patients with glioblastoma. Despite the clinical benefit of TTF, there is a strong concern regarding the cost of this new treatment. A first cost-effectiveness analysis, which was published in 2016, was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial and used a “standard” Markov model. Here, we aimed to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a partitioned survival model design and using the latest effectiveness data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partitioned survival model was developed with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Parametric models were fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall and progression-free survival. These generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. The perspective of the French national health insurance was adopted and the time horizon was 20 years. Base case results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Secondary analyses were undertaken, with the results presented as cost/per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Last, we undertook deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS After applying 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, the base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.507 LY at a incremental cost of €258,695 yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273 / LYG. Secondary analyses yielded an ICER of €667,173/QALY. Sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods showed the model was relatively robust. The model was sensitive to TTF device costs and the parametric model fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall survival. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed TTF has 0% of being cost-effective under conventional thresholds. CONCLUSION Using a partitioned survival model, uprated costs and more mature survival outcomes, TTF when compared to standard radio-chemotherapy with TMZ is not likely to be cost-effective. This has major implications in terms of access of newly eligible patients

Cost-effectiveness of routine laparoscopic ultrasound for the assessment of resectability of gallbladder cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 272-272
Author(s):  
Thejus T. Jayakrishnan ◽  
Hasan Nadeem ◽  
Ryan Thomas Groeschl ◽  
Anthony J Zacharias ◽  
T. Clark Gamblin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Laparoscopy ◽  
Hepatic Metastases ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Laparoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Base Case Scenario ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

272 Background: In addition to a diagnostic laparoscopy (DL), aroutine laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) has been proposed to identify undetected hepatic metastases and/or anatomically advanced disease in patients with T2 or higher gall bladder cancer (GBC) planned for surgical resection. It was hypothesized that a routine LUS is not a cost-effective strategy for these patients. Methods: Decision tree modeling was undertaken to compare DL-LUS vs. DL at the time of definitive resection of GBC (with no prior cholecystectomy). Costs in US dollars (payers’ perspective), quality-adjusted-life-weeks (QALWs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICER) were calculated (horizon: 6 weeks, willingness-to-pay: $1,000/QALW or $50,000/ QALY). Results: DL-LUS was cost effective at the base case scenario (costs: $30,838 for DL vs. $30,791 for DL-LUS and effectiveness 3.81 QALWs DL vs. 3.82 QALW DL-LUS, resulting in a cost reduction of $9,220 per quality adjusted life week gained (or $479,469 per QALY). DL-LUS became less cost effective as the cost of ultrasound increased (threshold: $163.18) or the probability of exclusion from resection decreased (threshold 0.29) (Table represents the results of univariate analyses). Conclusions: Routine LUS with diagnostic laparoscopy for the assessment of resectability and exclusion of metastases is cost effective for patients with GBC. Until improvements in pre-operative imaging occur to decrease the probability of exclusion, this appears to be a feasible strategy. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Memory Assessment Services for the diagnosis and early support of patients with dementia in England

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Gomes ◽  
Mark Pennington ◽  
Raphael Wittenberg ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
Nick Black ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Memory Assessment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
The Cost

Background Policy makers in England advocate referral of patients with suspected dementia to Memory Assessment Services (MAS), but it is unclear how any improvement in patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQL) compares with the associated costs. Aims To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MAS for the diagnosis and follow-up care of patients with suspected dementia. Method We analysed observational data from 1318 patients referred to 69 MAS, and their lay carers (n = 944), who completed resource use and HRQL questionnaires at baseline, three and six months. We reported mean differences in HRQL (disease-specific DEMQOL and generic EQ-5D-3L), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs between baseline and six months after referral to MAS. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of MAS across different patient subgroups and clinic characteristics. Results Referral to MAS was associated with gains in DEMQOL (mean gain: 3.48, 95% confidence interval: 2.84 to 4.12), EQ-5D-3L (0.023, 0.008 to 0.038) and QALYs (0.006, 0.002 to 0.01). Mean total cost over six months, assuming a societal perspective, was £1899 (£1277 to £2539). This yielded a negative incremental net monetary benefit of −£1724 (−£2388 to −£1085), assuming NICE’s recommended willingness-to-pay threshold (£30,000 per QALY). These base case results were relatively robust to alternative assumptions about costs and HRQL. There was some evidence that patients aged 80 or older benefitted more from referral to MAS (p < 0.01 from adjusted mean differences in net benefits) compared to younger patients. MAS with over 75 new patients a month or cost per patient less than £2500 over six months were relatively more cost-effective (p < 0.01) than MAS with fewer new monthly patients or higher cost per patient. Conclusions Diagnosis, treatment and follow-up care provided by MAS to patients with suspected dementia appears to be effective, but not cost-effective, in the six months after diagnosis. Longer term evidence is required before drawing conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of MAS.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Xin Sun ◽  
Bin Cui ◽  
Shan-Shan Cao ◽  
Qi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Ru-Yi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed.Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used.Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (−187017.543, −284,674.922, and −9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (−216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV.Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document