scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the anidulafungin (EraxisR) in adult patients with invasive candidiasis

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-108
Author(s):  
S. V. Nedogoda ◽  
A. S. Salasyuk ◽  
I. N. Barykina ◽  
V. O. Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Invasive Candidiasis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Complete Replacement ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Objective: to assess the economic outcomes of using anidulafungin (Eraxis®) in comparison with the recommended treatment regimens in adult patients with invasive candidiasis.Materials and methods. The economic impact assessment was carried out using “cost–effectiveness” analysis and “budget impact” analysis. “Cost–effectiveness” and “budget impact” analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel model.Results. An analysis of the effectiveness showed that the use of anidulafungin is characterized by higher survival (79.25 % vs 66.17 % for caspofungin and 60.84 % for mikafungin). The cost of anidulafungin was 377.7 thousand rubles, which is comparable with the course of caspofungin and 61 % lower than the cost of micafungin therapy. “Cost–effectiveness” analysis showed that the use of the anidulafungin in the treatment of invasive candidiasis is pharmacoeconomically effective and has a “cost–effectiveness” ratio comparable to caspofungin in terms of the effectiveness of therapy for 7 days and exceeds it in terms of the cost of preserving the patient»s life by 14.5 %. Compared to micafungin, anidulafungin is both more economical and more effective in terms of preserving the patient's life, reaching an advantage of up to 45 %. An analysis of the impact on the budget showed that with the complete replacement of the currently used treatment regimens in the target population of 11,840 patients with invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, it is possible to reduce the burden on the budget of the healthcare system to 17 % or 1458.6 million rubles in year. The average savings in the 3‑year study horizon, taking into account the gradual switching of 25, 50 and 75 % of the target patient population, amounted to 1277.9 million rubles per year or 14.4 %. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the results.Conclusion. Based on results, it can be concluded that the use of the drug anidulafungin (Eraxis®) in patients with invasive candidiasis is economically the preferred option compared to the use of current antibiotic therapy regimens.

scholarly journals Handling Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Budget Impact and Risk Aversion

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1419
Author(s):  
Pedram Sendi ◽  
Klazien Matter-Walstra ◽  
Matthias Schwenkglenks
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Joint Distribution ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
North East ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Methods to handle uncertainty in economic evaluation have gained much attention in the literature, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is the most widely used method to summarise and present uncertainty associated with program costs and effects in cost-effectiveness analysis. Some researchers have emphasised the limitations of the CEAC for informing decision and policy makers, as the CEAC is insensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects in the North-East and South-West quadrants of the cost-effective plane (CEP). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the CEAC does not incorporate risk-aversion in valuing uncertain costs and effects. In the present article, we show that the cost-effectiveness affordability curve (CEAFC) captures both dimensions of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects on the CEP and is, therefore, sensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution on the CEP. Furthermore, the CEAFC also informs about the budget impact of a new intervention, as it can be used to estimate the joint probability that an intervention is both affordable and cost-effective. Moreover, we show that the cost-effectiveness risk-aversion curve (CERAC) allows the analyst to incorporate different levels of risk-aversion into the analysis and can, therefore, be used to inform decision-makers who are risk-averse. We use data from a published cost-effectiveness model of palbociclib in addition to letrozole versus letrozole alone for the treatment of oestrogen-receptor positive, HER-2 negative, advanced breast cancer to demonstrate the differences between CEAC, CEAFC and CERAC, and show how these can jointly be used to inform decision and policy makers.

scholarly journals The Impact of the Cost of Existing Treatment on the Results of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Studies for Japan

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S87
Author(s):  
M LoPresti ◽  
D Mazumder ◽  
H Bhandari ◽  
S Ranjan ◽  
M Smulders
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of branded and authorized generic celecoxib for patients with chronic pain in Japan

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0253547
Author(s):  
Yusuke Karasawa ◽  
Isao Kamae ◽  
Kazutaka Nozawa ◽  
Shigeki Zeniya ◽  
Tatsunori Murata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of branded and authorized generic (AG) celecoxib for chronic pain patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and low back pain (LBP), using real-world cost information for loxoprofen and pharmacotherapy for gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as a long-term simulation using the Markov model from the Japanese public healthcare payer’s perspective. The analysis was conducted using loxoprofen with real-world weighted price by branded/generic distribution (hereinafter, loxoprofen with weighted price) as a comparator. In the model, we simulated the prognosis of patients with chronic pain by OA, RA, and LBP treated with loxoprofen or celecoxib, over a lifetime period. Results A cost-increase of 129,688 JPY (1,245.00 USD) for branded celecoxib and a cost-reduction of 6,268 JPY (60.17 USD) for AG celecoxib were recognized per patient in lifetime horizon, compared to loxoprofen with weighted price. No case was recognized to reverse the results of cost-saving by AG celecoxib in one-way sensitivity analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of branded celecoxib attained 5,403,667 JPY/QALY (51,875.20 USD/QALY), compared to loxoprofen with the weighted price. Conclusion The current cost-effectiveness analysis for AG celecoxib revealed its good value for costs, considering the patients’ future risk of gastrointestinal injury; also, the impact on costs due to AG celecoxib against loxoprofen will be small. It implies that the disadvantage of AG celecoxib being slightly more expensive than generic loxoprofen could be offset by the good cost-effectiveness during the prognosis.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent pneumonia in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6075-6075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneke Ham ◽  
Chantal Driessen ◽  
Mathijs P Hendriks ◽  
W. Edward Fiets ◽  
Bas Kreike ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Pain Medication ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

6075 Background: Recently, we reported about a prospective randomized study (PANTAP-study) investigating the effect of prophylactic antibiotics in LAHNC pts treated with CRT. We did not show a reduction in pneumonias, but did find a significant decrease in the number of hospitalizations. Detailed quality of life (QoL) results have been reported elsewhere. Now we present the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A multicenter study was performed in LAHNC pts treated with CRT, i.e.cisplatin weekly or 3-weekly combined with radiotherapy for 42 or 49 days. The standard treatment group (STG) received no prophylactic antibiotics; the intervention group (IG) received prophylactic antibiotics, i.e. amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, from day 29 until 14 days after completion of CRT. QoL questionnaires, including EQ-5D, QLQ-C30, EORTC Head&Neck35 and PSSHN, were taken before start of CRT, before start of antibiotics, at the end of CRT and at the end of follow up. Costs of hospitalization, prophylactic antibiotics, pain medication and anti-emetics were taken into account for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: A total of 94 pts were randomized; 48 pts to the STG and 47 pts to the IG. Between the STG and IG we found a difference per patient in costs of hospitalization of €2076 and €682 (p = 0.03), respectively, but not in the costs for pain medication per patient €78 and €46, respectively, (p = 0.382). The total costs of hospitalization in combination with prophylactic antibiotics, pain medication and anti-emetics were €2462 and €1037 (p = 0.046) in the STG and IG respectively, leading to a difference in total costs per patient of €1425 in favor of the IG. There were no significant differences in QoL between the groups. Conclusions: Prophylactic antibiotics during CRT for LAHNC did not reduce the rate of pneumonias, but reduced the number of hospitalizations in the IG, which led to a significant reduction in costs. Given the lack of adverse clinical effects, the same QoL, the cost savings and the impact of costs of hospitalization on health care globally, we recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics in LAHNC pts receiving CRT. Clinical trial information: NCT01598402.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analyses for mirtazapine and sertraline in dementia: randomised controlled trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Romeo ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
Jennifer Hellier ◽  
Michael Dewey ◽  
Clive Ballard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundDepression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.MethodA pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0–13 weeks and 0–39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.ResultsThere were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.ConclusionsIn terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.

scholarly journals Cyclosporine versus tacrolimus: cost-effectiveness analysis for renal transplantation in Brazil

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Augusto Afonso Guerra Júnior ◽  
Grazielle Dias Silva ◽  
Eli Iola Gurgel Andrade ◽  
Mariângela Leal Cherchiglia ◽  
Juliana de Oliveira Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Annual Cost ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Average Life Expectancy ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE To analyze the cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, five years after renal transplantation.METHODS This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on historical cohort data obtained between 2000 and 2004 and involved 2,022 patients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, matched 1:1 for gender, age, and type and year of transplantation. Graft survival and the direct costs of medical care obtained from the National Health System (SUS) databases were used as outcome results.RESULTS Most of the patients were women, with a mean age of 36.6 years. The most frequent diagnosis of chronic renal failure was glomerulonephritis/nephritis (27.7%). In five years, the tacrolimus group had an average life expectancy gain of 3.96 years at an annual cost of R$78,360.57 compared with the cyclosporine group with a gain of 4.05 years and an annual cost of R$61,350.44.CONCLUSIONS After matching, the study indicated better survival of patients treated with regimens using tacrolimus. However, regimens containing cyclosporine were more cost-effective.

scholarly journals Clinical and economic comparison of utilization of reslizumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (12) ◽  
pp. 172-179
Author(s):  
S. K. Zyryanov ◽  
S. N. Avdeev ◽  
D. A. Ivanov ◽  
M. V. Zhuravleva ◽  
N. P. Kniajeskaia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Asthma ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Severe Eosinophilic Asthma ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

During last few years, the approaches to the management of patients with severe asthma have been revised. Monoclonal antibodies (MABs), inhibitors of interleukin-5 (reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab) have been recently introduced for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The mentioned drugs were approved in Russia and included into the list of Vitally Essential Drugs. Aim.The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic consequences of the use of biological agents that antagonize IL-5 in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in adults. Materials and methods.Two methods of clinical and economic research were used: assessment of the cost-effectiveness ratio and analysis of the budget impact. The effectiveness of the drugs was assessed using indirect comparison; special attention was paid to comparability of the patient groups in the studies chosen for such an assessment. Two approaches were used for calculation of the cost of therapy for severe asthma: using DRGs (applicable to most regions of Russia), and without the use of DRGs, which is relevant only for few Russian regions. Results.Basing on the data obtained from a budget impact study without the use of DRG, it was shown that reslizumab was dominating for patients with body mass of up to 70 kg, while for the patients with body mass of 70 to 110 kg, mepolizumab was dominating, while utilization of reslizumab appeared to be somewhat more expensive. In the group of patients with body mass over 110 kg, mepolizumab also was dominating. The calculation of the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) showed that reslizumab appeared to be dominating over two other MABs, The results of the study using the DRG demonstrated that the cost of an annual course of benralizumab in most cases in Russia would exceed the amount that can be compensated by Territorial Funds for Mandatory Medical Insurance to a healthcare institution for therapy of bronchial asthma in one adult patient with genetically engineered drugs. Therefore, further comparisons were made for reslizumab and mepolizumab only. Analysis of the impact on the budget demonstrated that treatment with reslizumab and mepolizumab would represent a similar burden for the budget. When applying cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab was more cost-effective than mepolizumab (regardless of patient body mass). Conclusion.Thus, the results of the clinical and economic study suggested that, basing on the cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab appeared to be the dominant IL-5 antagonist (regardless of body mass if DRG approach was used and in patients with body mass up to 110 kg, if such an approach was not used). Basing on budget impact analysis, calculations without use of DRG approach showed superiority of reslizumab over mepolizumab and benralizumab for the patients with body mass up to 70 kg and the DRG-based approach showed equal burden for the budget for reslizumab and mepolizumab for the patients with any body mass.

scholarly journals Pregabalin versus gabapentin nel trattamento dei pazienti con neuropatia periferica: adattamento di un modello internazionale per la valutazione di costo/efficacia e costo/utilità alla realtà nazionale

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Marchettini ◽  
Lisa Da Deppo ◽  
Lorenzo Pradelli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Mild Pain ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Daily Pain

OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic impact of treating neuropathic pain with pregabalin versus gabapentin. DESIGN: A cost effectiveness analysis comparing costs and effects of pregabalin 375 mg/die versus gabapentin 1800 mg/die in the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service was developed. The cost effectiveness analysis is examined alternatively in terms of the incremental cost per additional day with no or mild pain, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Effects were derived from a pregabalin randomised clinical study 1008-155 and gabapentin 645-210 and 945-211 studies. Effects are expressed as reduction score of the VAS pain scale. Pharmacological costs were quantified according to the Italian market price of the drugs; healthcare procedure and hospitalisation costs were quantified on the basis of the National Tariff. Other healthcare services consumption data were derived from a Delphi Panel. To estimate the impact of pregabalin and gabapentin on daily pain experience in patients with neuropatic pain a Markov model is used. The dynamic simulation focuses on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients and simulates their daily pain experience over 12 weeks, to estimate clinical and economic outcomes for the group as a whole. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness ratio for the use of pregabalin is less than 1 euro per additional day with no or mild pain and 468 euros per QALY. The sensitivity analysis conducted to examine the effects of decreasing gabapentin dose to 1200 mg/die showes the consistency of the model results. CONCLUSIONS AND RESULTS: Although pregabalin pure costs are higher than gabapentin costs, the analyses prove pregabalin to be more effective with a small additional cost per day with no or mild pain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document