scholarly journals Value-Based Calculators in Cancer: Current State and Challenges

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 499-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chadi Nabhan ◽  
Bruce A. Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Initial Step ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Current State ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Cancer Network

The ASCO Value Framework, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering’s DrugAbacus, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculator are value-based methodologies that attempt to address the disproportionate increase in cancer care spending. These calculators can be used as an initial step for discussing cost versus value, but they fall short in recognizing the importance of the cancer journey because they do not fully factor the patient’s perspective or the global cost of care. This timely review highlights both the limitations and the advantages of each value calculator and suggests opportunities for refinement. Practicing oncologists, payers, and manufacturers should be familiar with value-based calculators because the role these tools play in cost containment is likely to be hotly debated.

scholarly journals Simplified Mathematical Modelling of Uncertainty: Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines in Spain

Mathematics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 566
Author(s):  
Julio Emilio Marco-Franco ◽  
Pedro Pita-Barros ◽  
Silvia González-de-Julián ◽  
Iryna Sabat ◽  
David Vivas-Consuelo
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Planning ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Reliable Data ◽  
Simplified Model ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Funeral Homes ◽  
The Cost

When exceptional situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, arise and reliable data is not available at decision-making times, estimation using mathematical models can provide a reasonable reckoning for health planning. We present a simplified model (static but with two-time references) for estimating the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. A simplified model provides a quick assessment of the upper bound of cost-effectiveness, as we illustrate with data from Spain, and allows for easy comparisons between countries. It may also provide useful comparisons among different vaccines at the marketplace, from the perspective of the buyer. From the analysis of this information, key epidemiological figures, and costs of the disease for Spain have been estimated, based on mortality. The fatality rate is robust data that can alternatively be obtained from death registers, funeral homes, cemeteries, and crematoria. Our model estimates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be 5132 € (4926–5276) as of 17 February 2021, based on the following assumptions/inputs: An estimated cost of 30 euros per dose (plus transport, storing, and administration), two doses per person, efficacy of 70% and coverage of 70% of the population. Even considering the possibility of some bias, this simplified model provides confirmation that vaccination against COVID-19 is highly cost-effective.

scholarly journals A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell S Renna ◽  
Cristiano van Zeller ◽  
Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽  
Cherlyn Tong ◽  
Jasmine Gambini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
One Year ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER)

2013 ◽  
pp. 1053-1053
Author(s):  
Marie Boltz ◽  
Holly Rau ◽  
Paula Williams ◽  
Holly Rau ◽  
Paula Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Posaconazole Versus Standard Azole Therapy as Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with Prolonged Neutropenia in Canada

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir A Tahami Monfared ◽  
Amy K O’Sullivan ◽  
Coleman Rotstein ◽  
George Papadopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Neutropenic Patients

INTRODUCTION: Posaconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients prevents invasive fungal infection (IFI). An economic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of posaconazole from a Canadian health care system perspective.METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed based on data from a randomized trial comparing posaconazole with standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) therapy. The model was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using one-month Markov cycles; lifetime survival was specific to the underlying disease. Drug and treatment costs associated with IFI were estimated using published literature. The model was used to estimate total costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of posaconazole versus standard azole therapy, in 2007 Canadian dollars.RESULTS: Based on the clinical trial data, posaconazole was associated with fewer cases of IFI (0.05 versus 0.11; P=0.003), increased life-years (2.52 years versus 2.43 years) and slightly lower costs ($6,601 versus $7,045) per patient relative to standard azole therapy over a lifetime horizon. Higher acquisition costs for posaconazole were offset by IFI-associated inpatient costs for those prophylaxed with standard azoles. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 59% probability that posaconazole was cost-saving versus standard azole therapy and a 96% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for posaconazole was at or below the $50,000 per life-year saved threshold.DISCUSSION: In Canada, posaconazole appears to be cost-saving relative to standard azole therapy in IFI prevention among high-risk neutropenic patients.

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of three diagnostic test strategies for angle closure in a developing country

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Mariana Y Miyamoto ◽  
Ralph Cohen ◽  
Niro Kasahara
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Developing Country ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Angle Closure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Primary Angle Closure ◽  
Scheimpflug Camera ◽  
Camera Imaging ◽  
The Cost

Background/Aims The appropriate roles for alternative diagnostic tests in detecting primary angle closure of the eye are uncertain. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Scheimpflug camera imaging, the van Herick technique and gonioscopy to identify primary angle in a developing country. Methods This cross-sectional diagnostic study included participants aged >40 years with suspected primary angle closure in the developing country of Brazil. All participants underwent Scheimpflug camera imaging, a van Herick test and gonioscopy. The diagnostic ability of these tests was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Costs of interventions were derived using the Brazilian Hierarchical Classification of Medical Procedures. The cost-effectiveness of the tests were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results Gonioscopy was confirmed to be the most accurate diagnostic test for primary angle closure, closely followed by the van Herick test. The accuracy of Scheimpflug camera imaging was considerably lower, largely because of its low sensitivity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio demonstrated that Scheimpflug camera imaging was also the least cost-effective, as it was considerably more expensive but with less clinical benefits. Conclusions Because of its relatively low accuracy and high costs, Scheimpflug camera imaging is not as cost-effective as gonioscopy nor the van Herick test as a means of diagnosing primary angle closure in a developing country.

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Aguilar-Serra ◽  
Vicente Gimeno-Ballester ◽  
Alfonso Pastor-Clerigues ◽  
Javier Milara ◽  
Ezequiel Marti-Bonmati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Estimate Quality ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

Abstract 25: Cost-Effectiveness of Public Automated External Defibrillators

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars W Andersen ◽  
Mathias J Holmberg ◽  
Asger Granfeldt ◽  
Lyndon P James ◽  
Lisa Caulley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Automated External Defibrillators ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Introduction: Despite a consistent association with improved outcomes, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are used in only approximately 10% of public out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of the barriers towards increased use might be cost. The objective of this study was to provide a contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of public AEDs in the United States (US) to inform guidelines and public health initiatives. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of public AEDs to no AEDs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US over a life-time horizon. The analysis assumed a societal perspective and results are presented as costs (in 2017 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model inputs were based on reviews of the literature. For the base case, we modelled an annual cardiac arrest incidence per AED of 20%. It was assumed that AED use was associated with a 52% relative increase in survival to hospital discharge with a favorable neurological outcome in those with a shockable rhythm. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for joint parameter uncertainty. Consistent with recent guidelines from the American Heart Association, we used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Results: The no AED strategy resulted in 1.63 QALYs at a cost of $42,757. The AED strategy yielded an additional 0.26 QALYs for an incremental increase in cost of $13,793 per individual. The AED strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,797 per QALY gained. The yearly incidence of cardiac arrests occurring in the presence of an AED had minimal effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio except at very low incidences. At an incidence of 1%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $101,040 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses across a plausible range of health-care and societal estimates, the AED strategy remained cost-effective. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the AED strategy was cost-effective in 43%, 85%, and 91% of the scenarios at a threshold of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusion: Public AEDs are a cost-effective public health intervention in the US. These findings support widespread dissemination of public AEDs.

Abstract 265: Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Acute Aortic Dissection During Cardiac Arrest: A Nationwide Retrospective Observational Study

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takayuki Ogura ◽  
Hiroyuki Ohbe ◽  
Hideo Yasunaga
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Acute Aortic Dissection ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Neurological Outcomes

Aim: Acute aortic dissection has been considered a contraindication for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, studies are lacking regarding the epidemiology and effectiveness of ECPR for this condition. We aimed to examine whether ECPR for acute aortic dissection during cardiac arrest is effective or not. Methods: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2018, we identified all emergently hospitalized adults who received ECPR on the day of admission. ECPR was defined as receiving both chest compressions and percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on the day of hospital admission. In-hospital mortality and neurological outcomes were compared between patients with and without acute aortic dissection. We also calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for acute aortic dissection. Results: We identified 10,238 patients who received ECPR on the day of admission. Of these, 398 patients (3.9%) had acute aortic dissection. In-hospital mortality was 98% in the acute aortic dissection group and 79% in the non-acute aortic dissection group. Seven patients (1.8%) in the acute aortic dissection group survived to discharge after ECPR; of these, six patients had good neurological outcomes at discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for patients with acute aortic dissection was estimated at 159,337 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. Conclusion: ECPR successfully rescued a small number of acute aortic dissection patients with cardiac arrest; however, the cost burden of ECPR for acute aortic dissection patients was unacceptably high.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document