A cost-effectiveness analysis of iStent inject combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France

Objective To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementing iStent inject trabecular bypass stent (TBS) in conjunction with cataract surgery (Cat Sx) in patients with mild-to-moderate glaucoma from a societal perspective in France. The secondary objective was to explore the economic impact of iStent inject TBS in patients who comply to different degrees with their anti-glaucoma medications. Methods A previously published Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx versus Cat Sx alone over a lifetime time horizon in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle glaucoma in France. Progression was modeled by health states reflecting increasing stages of vision loss. Disease progression was obtained from the two-year randomized clinical trial assessing safety and effectiveness of both interventions. French specific health-state utilities and costs were obtained through a targeted literature review. Model structure and inputs were validated by French ophthalmologists. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The robustness of results was tested through sensitivity analyses. Results iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx reduced the number of medications needed and risk of blindness. Incremental cost and QALYs were €75 and 0.065 leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,154/QALY gained. ICER ranged from dominating for non-persistent patients to €31,127 patients fully persistent with their medication regime. Results from one-way sensitivity analysis had a maximum ICER of €29,000 when varying input parameters. iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx had an 86% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion Results demonstrate that iStent inject TBS + Cat Sx is a cost-effective intervention for intraocular pressure reduction when compared to Cat Sx alone in France.

Download Full-text

Cost-utility Analysis of Trabecular Micro-bypass Stents (TBS) in Patients With Mild-to-moderate Open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

10.21203/rs.3.rs-267336/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Antonio Maria Fea ◽

Francesco Cattel ◽

Stefano Gandolfi ◽

Giorgio Buseghin ◽

Gianluca Furneri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cataract Surgery ◽

Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Base Case ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Istent Inject ◽

The Cost

Abstract BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8,368.51 vs. €7,134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness (CEAC) analysis showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective. Trial registration: Not applicable

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk profiling for primary open-angle glaucoma in the United Kingdom and Australia

10.1101/2021.02.18.21251906 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Qinqin Liu ◽

John Davis ◽

Xikun Han ◽

David A Mackey ◽

Stuart MacGregor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Primary Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Open Angle ◽

Polygenic Risk ◽

Risk Profiling ◽

The Uk ◽

The Cost

ABSTRACTObjectivePrimary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is the most common subtype of glaucoma worldwide. Early diagnosis and intervention is proven to slow disease progression and reduce disease burden. Currently, population-based screening for POAG is not generally recommended due to cost. In this study, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk profiling as a screening tool for POAG.Methods and AnalysisWe used a Markov cohort model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing polygenic risk profiling as a new POAG-screening approach in the UK and Australia. Six health states were included in this model: death, early, mild, moderate, severe, and healthy individuals. The evaluation was conducted from the healthcare payer’s perspective. We used the best available published data to calculate prevalence, transition probabilities, utility and other parameters for each health state and age group. The study followed the CHEERS checklist. Our main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and secondary outcomes were years of blindness avoided per person and a ‘Blindness ICER’. We did one-way and two-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to reflect the uncertainty around predicting ICERs.ResultsOur proposed genetic screening programme for POAG in Australia is predicted to result in ICER of AU$34,252 (95% CI AU$21,324-95,497) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of AU$13,359 (95% CI: AU$8,143-37,448). In the UK, this screening is predicted to result in ICER of £24,783 (13,373-66,960) and would avoid 1 year of blindness at ICER of £10,095 (95%CI: £5,513-27,656). Findings were robust in all sensitivity analyses. Using the willingness to pay thresholds of $54,808 and £30,000, the proposed screening model is 79.2% likely to be cost-effective in Australia and is 60.2% likely to be cost-effective in the UK, respectively.ConclusionsWe describe and model the cost-efficacy of incorporating a polygenic risk score for POAG screening in Australia and the UK. Although the level of willingness to pay for Australian Government is uncertain, and the ICER range for the UK is broad, we showed a clear target strategy for early detection and prevention of advanced POAG in these developed countries.Copyrightthe Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence.

Download Full-text

Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

BMC Health Services Research ◽

10.1186/s12913-021-06862-x ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Antonio Maria Fea ◽

Francesco Cattel ◽

Stefano Gandolfi ◽

Giorgio Buseghin ◽

Gianluca Furneri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cataract Surgery ◽

Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Base Case ◽

Utility Analysis ◽

Istent Inject ◽

The Cost

Abstract Background Glaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods Simulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. Results Results of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions The results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective.

Download Full-text

Economic evaluation of screening for open-angle glaucoma

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462308080288 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 24 (02) ◽

pp. 203-211 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Rodolfo A. Hernández ◽

Jennifer M. Burr ◽

Luke D. Vale

Keyword(s):

United Kingdom ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Current Practice ◽

Open Angle Glaucoma ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Screening Strategy ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Open Angle ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Age Cohort

Objectives:The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide.Methods:A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results:Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of ≤1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, “technician screening” compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < £30,000.Conclusions:Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for American tegumentary leishmaniasis in Argentina

Cadernos de Saúde Pública ◽

10.1590/0102-311x00172512 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 29 (12) ◽

pp. 2459-2472 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Pablo Wenceslao Orellano ◽

Nestor Vazquez ◽

Oscar Daniel Salomon

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Early Diagnosis ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽

Tegumentary Leishmaniasis ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of reducing tegumentary leishmaniasis transmission using insecticide-impregnated clothing and curtains, and implementing training programs for early diagnosis. A societal perspective was adopted, with outcomes assessed in terms of costs per disability adjusted life years (DALY). Simulation was structured as a Markov model and costs were expressed in American dollars (US$). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of each strategy was calculated. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for early diagnosis strategy was estimated at US$ 156.46 per DALY averted, while that of prevention of transmission with insecticide-impregnated curtains and clothing was US$ 13,155.52 per DALY averted. Both strategies were more sensitive to the natural incidence of leishmaniasis, to the effectiveness of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis treatment and to the cost of each strategy. Prevention of vectorial transmission and early diagnosis have proved to be cost-effective measures.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e18829 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18829-e18829

Author(s):

Kishan Patel ◽

Stacey Stein ◽

Janki Luther ◽

Scott F. Huntington

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Willingness To Pay ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Health State ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Lifetime Horizon ◽

Advanced Hcc

e18829 Background: The IMbrave150 trial found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to sorafenib. However, atezolizumab and bevacizumab are costly treatments and are administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether atezolizumab-bevacizumab is cost-effective in this clinical setting. Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the costs and effectiveness of atezolizumab-bevacizumab to sorafenib in advanced HCC. PFS and OS curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the IMbrave150 trial using parametric survival modeling. The utility of each health state and the costs of treatment, adverse events, and terminal care were derived from literature and Medicare fee schedules. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab-bevacizumab from a US healthcare perspective, using a lifetime horizon, an annual discount rate of 3%, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of model conclusions. Results: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was associated with an incremental cost of $102,648 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.42 QALYs compared to sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $244,213/QALY (Table). The price of atezolizumab would need to be reduced by 40% (from ̃$9,400 to ̃$5,700 per dose) or the price of bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 47% (from ̃$8,400 to ̃$4,400 per dose) for atezolizumab-bevacizumab to be cost-effective compared to sorafenib. Alternatively, the price of both atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be simultaneously decreased by ̃21% for the combination therapy to be cost-effective. Our model was most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HR) of OS and PFS; varying the HRs across the 95% confidence interval reported in IMbrave150 (0.42-0.79) corresponded to ICERs of $137,435/QALY and $621,365/QALY, respectively. During probabilistic sensitivity analyses, >99%, 99%, and 90% of iterations produced ICERs greater than willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions: Use of atezolizumab-bevacizumab for advanced HCC is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line (1L) treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany: Data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.4_suppl.800 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽

pp. 800-800 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sebastian Stintzing ◽

Ilse van Oostrum ◽

Chris Pescott ◽

Alma Katharina Steinbach-Buechert ◽

Bart Heeg ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Base Case ◽

Health State ◽

Primary Tumors ◽

Payer Perspective ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost

800 Background: The randomized, phase 3 FIRE-3 trial evaluated 1L FOLFIRI + cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC; overall survival favored FOLFIRI + cetuximab by > 8 months. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs that of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab as 1L treatment for patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC (including the patient subgroup with RAS wt, left-sided [LS] primary tumors, as LS is a predictive factor). Methods: A standard oncology 3–health-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to analyze the costs and health benefits of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs those of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab from a German payer perspective based on data from FIRE-3 and the literature. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. A 3.5% discounting rate was applied to the modeled costs and outcomes. Results: Discounted costs, health gains, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for patients with RAS wt (base case) and patients with RAS wt, LS (subgroup) mCRC are summarized in the Table. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at relevant European willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €55,000 and €80,000, FOLFIRI + cetuximab had a 64.0% and 81.6% (base case) and 80.5% and 92.4% (subgroup) probability of being cost-effective vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab, respectively. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC at official WTP thresholds applied by relevant European health technology assessment agencies. The cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab is more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with RAS wt, LS tumors.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF IVABRADINE IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE IN IRAN

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462318003598 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (6) ◽

pp. 576-583 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Saeed Taheri ◽

Elham Heidari ◽

Mohammad Ali Aivazi ◽

Mehran Shams-Beyranvand ◽

Mehdi Varmaghani

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Sensitivity Analysis ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Transition Probabilities ◽

Drug Acquisition ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Baseline Heart Rate ◽

Life Years ◽

The Cost

Objectives:This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) in comparison with current SoC alone from the Iranian payer perspective.Methods:A cohort-based Markov model was developed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10-year time horizon in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The baseline transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA), mortality rate, and hospitalization rate were extracted from the literature. The effect of ivabradine on mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA improvement or worsening were retrieved from the SHIFT study. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the utility values derived from Iranian Heart Failure Quality of Life study. Direct medical costs were obtained from hospital records and national tariffs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to show the robustness of the model.Results:Ivabradine therapy was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of USD $5,437 (incremental cost of USD $2,207 and QALYs gained 0.41) versus SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ivabradine is expected to have a 60 percent chance of being cost-effective accepting a threshold of USD $6,550 per QALY. Furthermore, deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the model is sensitive to the ivabradine drug acquisition cost.Conclusions:The cost-effectiveness model suggested that the addition of ivabradine to SoC therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes along with increased costs. The analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost in eligible heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and a baseline heart rate ≥ 75 beats per minute (bpm).

Download Full-text

Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda

Frontiers in Public Health ◽

10.3389/fpubh.2021.651325 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

Author(s):

Stephen Okoboi ◽

Barbara Castelnuovo ◽

Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden ◽

Oucul Lazarus ◽

Lung Vu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Hiv Testing ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Hiv Infections ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

High Risk Population ◽

Self Testing ◽

The Cost

Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: From June to August 2018, we conducted a pilot study of secondary MSM peer HIVST kit distribution at The AIDS Support Organization at Entebbe and Masaka. We used an ingredients approach to estimate the cost of MSM peer HIVST kit distribution relative to standard-of-care (SOC) hotspot testing using programme expenditure data reported in US dollars. The provider perspective was used to estimate incremental cost-effective ratios per HIV infection averted using the difference in HIV annual transmission rates between MSM with HIV who knew their status and were not virologically suppressed and MSM with HIV who did not know their status.Results: We enrolled 297 participants of whom 150 received MSM peer HIVST kit distribution (intervention group) and 147 received TASO standard of care HIV testing (control group). Provider cost for the intervention was $2,276 compared with $1,827 for SOC during the 3-month study period. Overall, the intervention resulted in higher HIV positivity yield (4.9 vs. 1.4%) and averted more HIV infections per quarter (0.364 vs. 0.104) compared with SOC. The cost per person tested was higher for the intervention compared to SOC ($15.90 vs. $12.40). Importantly, the cost per new HIV diagnosis ($325 vs. $914) and cost per transmission averted ($6,253 vs. $ 17,567) were lower for the intervention approach relative to SOC. The incremental cost per HIV transmission averted by the self-testing program was $1,727. The incremental cost to providers per additional HIV-positive person identified by the intervention was $147.30.Conclusion: The intervention strategy was cost-effective, and identified more undiagnosed HIV infections than SOC hotspot testing at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US $2,129. Secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peers should further be evaluated with longer duration aimed at diagnosing 95% of all persons with HIV by 2030; the first UNAIDS 95-95-95 target.

Download Full-text

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

Current Journal of Neurology ◽

10.18502/cjn.v20i3.7690 ◽

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.

Download Full-text