Cost-effectiveness of surgery for drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy in the US

ObjectiveSurgery is an effective but costly treatment for many patients with drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy (DR-TLE). We aim to evaluate whether, in the United States, surgery is cost-effective compared to medical management for patients deemed surgical candidates and whether surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients with DR-TLE in general.MethodsWe use a semi-Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. We use second-order Monte Carlo simulations to conduct probabilistic sensitivity analyses to estimate variation in model output. We adopt both health care and societal perspectives, including direct health care costs (e.g., surgery, antiepileptic drugs) and indirect costs (e.g., lost earnings by patients and care providers.) We compare the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to societal willingness to pay (∼$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) to determine whether surgery is cost-effective.ResultsEpilepsy surgery is cost-effective compared to medical management in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost-saving ($328,000 vs $423,000) and more effective (16.6 vs 13.6 QALY) than medical management in the long run. Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in patients with DR-TLE even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is only 5%. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost-effective within 3 years, and 89% of simulations favor surgery over the lifetime horizon.ConclusionFor surgically eligible patients with DR-TLE, surgery is cost-effective. For patients with DR-TLE in general, referral for surgical evaluation (and possible subsequent surgery) is cost-effective. Patients with DR-TLE should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

Download Full-text

The Cost-Effectiveness of Epilepsy Surgery and Surgical Evaluation in the United States

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyz310_165 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Shehryar R Sheikh ◽

Michael P Steinmetz ◽

Michael W Kattan ◽

Mendel Singer ◽

Belinda Udeh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Monte Carlo ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Epilepsy Surgery ◽

Medical Management ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Effective Strategies ◽

Surgical Evaluation ◽

The Cost

Abstract INTRODUCTION Surgery is an effective treatment for many pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients, but incurs considerable cost. It is unknown whether surgery and surgical evaluation are cost-effective strategies in the United States. We aim to evaluate whether 1) surgery is cost-effective for patients who have been deemed surgical candidates when compared to continued medical management, 2) surgical evaluation is cost-effective for patients who have drug-resistant temporal epilepsy and may or may not ultimately be deemed surgical candidates METHODS We use a Monte Carlo simulation method to assess the cost-effectiveness of surgery and surgical evaluation over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between two health states (‘seizure free’ and ‘having seizures’) as part of a Markov process, based on literature estimates. We adopt both healthcare and societal perspectives, including direct healthcare costs and indirect costs such as lost earnings by patients and care providers. We estimate variability of model predictions using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS 1) Epilepsy surgery is cost effective in surgically eligible patients by virtue of being cost saving and more effective than medical management in the long run, with 95% of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations favoring surgery. From a societal perspective, surgery becomes cost effective within 3 yr. At 5 yr, surgery has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,600, which is significantly below the societal willingness-to-pay (∼ $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY)) and comparable to hip/knee arthroplasty. 2) Surgical evaluation is cost-effective in pharmacoresistant patients even if the probability of being deemed a surgical candidate is low (5%-10%). Even if the probability of surgical eligibility is only 10%, surgical referral has an ICER of $96,000/QALY, which is below societal willingness-to-pay. CONCLUSION Epilepsy surgery and surgical evaluation are both cost-effective strategies in the United States. Pharmacoresistant temporal lobe epilepsy patients should be referred for surgical evaluation without hesitation on cost-effectiveness grounds.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of once weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e18356 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18356-e18356

Author(s):

Shaji Kumar ◽

Istvan Majer ◽

Sumeet Panjabi ◽

Jean Malacan ◽

Rohan Medhekar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Life Years ◽

Lifetime Costs

e18356 Background: Carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Kd) dosed once weekly at 70 mg/m2 (QW Kd70) was recently approved in the US for treating patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of QW Kd70 vs twice weekly Kd dosed at 27 mg/m2 (BIW Kd27), data from the phase 3 ARROW trial, which directly compared these regimens in patients with 2-3 prior lines of therapy were used. Methods: A partitioned survival model was developed for the CE analysis. Time to treatment discontinuation, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were estimated from the ARROW trial. Long-term OS was extrapolated using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registry data after matching characteristics of patients in the registry and ARROW trial. Direct costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. Utilities collected in the ARROW trial using the five-level version of the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) were applied to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Uncertainty was explored using sensitivity analyses. Two subgroups of patients refractory to lenalidomide or bortezomib were assessed. Main outcomes were mean life-years (LYs), QALYs, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: For QW Kd70 and BIW Kd27, the model predicted mean LYs of 4.17 and 3.07 years, QALYs of 2.98 and 2.03 years, and mean total lifetime costs of $444,563 and $373,364, respectively. The incremental LYs gain, QALY gain, and incremental costs of QW Kd70 vs BIW Kd27 were estimated to be 1.10 years, 0.95 year, and $71,199, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $64,595 per LY gained and $75,204 per QALY gained. For patients refractory to lenalidomide and bortezomib, similar results were found with ICERs of $79,988 and $76,793, respectively. Conclusions: In line with ARROW trial results, this CE analysis showed that QW Kd70 is expected to provide considerable additional benefit in terms of LYs and QALYs gained compared with BIW Kd27. In the RRMM setting, QW Kd70 is cost-effective with ICERs below accepted willingness to pay thresholds in US and represents an efficient utilization of the health care budget.

Download Full-text

Will Cost Effectiveness Analysis Worsen the Cost Effectiveness of Health Care?

International Journal of Health Services ◽

10.2190/vdak-9mfh-1vwn-g1lr ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 1-9 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

David U. Himmelstein ◽

Steffie Woolhandler ◽

David H. Bor

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Policy ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Effectiveness Analysis ◽

Policy Analysts ◽

Policy Cost ◽

The Cost

Cost effectiveness analysis is increasingly advocated as a basis for health policy. Analysts often compare expensive interventions with highly cost-effective programs such as hypertension screening, implying that if the former were curtailed resources would be reallocated to the latter and the efficiency of health care would improve. However, in practice, savings are unlikely to be targeted in this way. We present refined policy models that take into account actual patterns of resource allocation in the United States, and provide more realistic estimates of the likely uses of savings. We illustrate the implications of these models in an analysis of the effects of diverting funds from an expensive but effective practice. Eliminating such a practice would actually worsen the overall cost-effectiveness of U.S. health care unless there are radical changes in health policy. Cost effectiveness analysis incorrectly predicts health and cost outcomes of policy initiatives because it ignores the political constraints to health care decision-making.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (< 6) at presentation

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/2020.9.jns202965 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-11

Author(s):

Xiao Wu ◽

Sam Payabvash ◽

Charles C. Matouk ◽

Michael H. Lev ◽

Max Wintermark ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Medical Management ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Effective Strategy ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

Old Patients ◽

Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽

Good Outcome ◽

Cost Effective Strategy

OBJECTIVE The utility of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke, large vessel occlusion (LVO), and low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (ASPECTS) remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine the health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of EVT versus medical management in patients with ASPECTS < 6. METHODS A decision-analytical study was performed with Markov modeling to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and associated costs of EVT-treated patients compared to medical management. The study was performed over a lifetime horizon with a societal perspective in the US setting. RESULTS The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $412,411/QALY and $1,022,985/QALY for 55- and 65-year-old groups in the short-term model. EVT was the long-term cost-effective strategy in 96.16% of the iterations and resulted in differences in health benefit of 2.21 QALYs and 0.79 QALYs in the 55- and 65-year-old age groups, respectively, equivalent to 807 days and 288 days in perfect health. EVT remained the more cost-effective strategy when the probability of good outcome with EVT was above 16.8% or as long as the good outcome associated with the procedure was at least 1.6% higher in absolute value than that of medical management. EVT remained cost-effective even when its cost exceeded $100,000 (threshold was $108,036). Although the cost-effectiveness decreased with age, EVT was cost-effective for 75-year-old patients as well. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that EVT is the more cost-effective approach compared to medical management in patients with ASPECTS < 6 in the long term (lifetime horizon), considering the poor outcomes and significant disability associated with nonreperfusion.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery ◽

10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018375 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Preventing COVID-19 Transmission on Labor and Delivery: A Decision Analysis

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1713647 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 37 (10) ◽

pp. 1031-1037 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Leah M. Savitsky ◽

Catherine M. Albright

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Labor And Delivery ◽

Induced Labor ◽

The Cost ◽

The Impact ◽

Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽

Effectiveness Threshold

Objective The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). Study Design We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. Results In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. Conclusion Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. Key Points

Download Full-text

Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-97259-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Stephen E. Congly ◽

Rhea A. Varughese ◽

Crystal E. Brown ◽

Fiona M. Clement ◽

Lynora Saxinger

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Health Care System ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Cost Effective Treatment ◽

Severe Infections ◽

Care System

AbstractDespite COVID-19’s significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of Universal Hepatitis C Virus Screening of Pregnant Women in the United States

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciz063 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 69 (11) ◽

pp. 1888-1895 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Antoine Chaillon ◽

Elizabeth B Rand ◽

Nancy Reau ◽

Natasha K Martin

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Hepatitis C Virus ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Hepatitis C ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

Hcv Screening ◽

The Cost

Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus’ (HCV) chronic prevalence among pregnant women in the United States doubled nationally from 2009–2014 (~0.7%), yet many cases remain undiagnosed. Screening pregnant women is not recommended by the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, despite new American Association For the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommending screening for this group. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for pregnant women in the United States. Methods An HCV natural history Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal HCV screening of pregnant women, followed by treatment after pregnancy, compared to background risk-based screening from a health-care payer perspective. We assumed a HCV chronic prevalence of 0.73% among pregnant women, based on national data. We assumed no Medicaid reimbursement restrictions by fibrosis stage at baseline, but explored differing restrictions in sensitivity analyses. We assessed costs (in US dollars) and health outcomes (in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) over a lifetime horizon, using new HCV drug costs of $25 000/treatment. We assessed mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY gained. We additionally evaluated the potential population impact. Results Universal antenatal screening was cost-effective in all treatment eligibility scenarios (mean ICER <$3000/QALY gained). Screening remained cost-effective at a prevalence of 0.07%, which is the lowest estimated prevalence in the United States (in Hawaii). Screening the ~5.04 million pregnant women in 2018 could result in the detection and treatment of 33 000 women, based on current fibrosis restrictions. Conclusions Universal screening for HCV among pregnant women in the United States is cost-effective and should be recommended nationally.

Download Full-text

Treatment of Moderate to Severe Respiratory COVID-19--A Cost-Utility Analysis

10.1101/2020.09.21.20199182 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Stephen E Congly ◽

Rhea A Varughese ◽

Crystal E Brown ◽

Fiona M Clement ◽

Lynora Saxinger

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Health Care System ◽

Cost Effective ◽

The United States ◽

Effective Strategy ◽

Cost Effective Strategy ◽

Severe Infections

Background: Due to COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, identifying the most cost-effective pharmacologic treatment strategy is critical. As such, we determined the most cost-effective strategy for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. Methods: A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Results: Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98/0.8256 QALY. Remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,764.56/QALY gained compared to supportive care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed remdesivir for moderate/dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 infection was most cost-effective in 88.6% of scenarios and dexamethasone in moderate-severe infections in 11.4% of scenarios. With lower willingness to pay thresholds ($250-$37,500), dexamethasone for severe infections was favoured. Conclusions: Remdesivir for moderate/dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy. Further data is required for remdesivir to better assess its cost effectiveness in treatment of COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment in Patients With IIIB–IV Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Without EGFR and ALK Alteration from a Perspective of Health - Care System in China

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.735536 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Chen Zhu ◽

Xiao-xuan Xing ◽

Bin Wu ◽

Gang Liang ◽

Gang Han ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Small Cell ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: The CAMEL clinical trial (412 patients were randomly assigned to either camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 205) or chemotherapy alone (n = 207)) demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) improved the overall survival time (OS) and progression-free survival time (PFS) of patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (non-sq NSCLC) without epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutations (EGFRm and ALKm) vs. chemotherapy (C) alone. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of CC vs. C from a perspective of health - care system in China with a lifetime horizon to identify whether it will be cost-effective.Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was applied for patients with IIIB–IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm. Transition parameters and proportions of three health states were derived from the CAMEL trial. The model was designed using a lifetime horizon, a 21-day cycle, and a 5% discount rate of costs and outcomes. It was deemed cost-effective in China if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value is less than $32,457 per quality adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results.Results: In the base-case analysis, we found that the ICER of CC compared with C is $-7,382.72/QALY which meant that CC had lower costs and better outcomes. The results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the result was robust for the ICERs never transcending the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold.Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is an obviously cost-effective therapeutic regime for patients of IIIB–IV non-sq NSCLC without EGFRm and ALKm in China at a $32,457 WTP threshold.

Download Full-text