scholarly journals Pegylated versus non-pegylated interferon beta 1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A cost-effectiveness analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Hashemi-Meshkini ◽  
Hedieh Sadat Zekri ◽  
Hasan Karimi-Yazdi ◽  
Pardis Zaboli ◽  
Mohammad Ali Sahraian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Pegylated Interferon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health States ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Background: Pegylated (PEG) interferon beta 1a has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) as an alternative to interferon beta 1a for multiple sclerosis (MS). Due to its higher price, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEG-interferon beta 1-a compared with interferon beta 1a from an Iranian payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was designed according to health states based on Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and one-month cycles over a 10-year time horizon. Direct medical and non-medical costs were included from a payer perspective. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated around 11111 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the PEG-interferon versus interferon regimen [with currency rate of 29,000 Iranian Rial (IRR) to 1 USD in 2016]. Conclusion: Considering the cost-effectiveness  threshold in Iran [three times of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita or 15,945 USD], PEG-interferon beta 1-a could be considered as a cost effective treatment for Iranian patients with MS.

scholarly journals Cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus for the treatment of moderate-to-severe lupus nephritis in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (13) ◽  
pp. 1125-1141
Author(s):  
Soyoung Kim ◽  
Adrian Yit Reen Ooi ◽  
Thomas Stephens ◽  
Hongsi Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Original Form ◽  
Health States ◽  
Effectiveness Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Tacrolimus Therapy ◽  
The Cost

Aim: Therapy for lupus nephritis (LN) requires treatment with immunosuppressive regimens, often including intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVCY), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine. Additionally, tacrolimus (original form or generic) is recommended to treat LN patients in Asia, including China. However, the cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus therapy has not previously been assessed. We aimed to estimate the cost–effectiveness of tacrolimus in the treatment of moderate-to-severe LN versus standard therapies in China. Materials & methods: This cost–effectiveness model combined a decision-tree/Markov-model structure to map transitions between health states during induction and maintenance treatment phases. Induction with tacrolimus, IVCY or MMF, was followed by tacrolimus, MMF or azathioprine maintenance. Results: According to the model, during induction, complete remission rates were higher with tacrolimus versus IVCY (relative risk 1.40 vs IVCY [deterministic sensitivity analysis minimum 0.92, maximum 2.13]) and time to response was shorter. Relapse rates were lower with tacrolimus versus azathioprine or MMF during maintenance. Tacrolimus induction and maintenance was the most cost-effective regimen, incurring the lowest total costs (CN¥180,448) with the highest quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusion: The model demonstrated that tacrolimus use in both induction and maintenance therapy may be an efficacious and cost-effective treatment for LN in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for cluster B personality disorders

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djøra I. Soeteman ◽  
Roel Verheul ◽  
Jos Delimon ◽  
Anke M. M. A. Meerman ◽  
Ellen van den Eijnden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Day Hospital ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Cluster B Personality Disorders ◽  
Effective Choice ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundRecommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence.AimsA formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders.MethodA probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of €12 274 per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at €113 298. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at €56 325 and €286 493 per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at €9895 and €155 797 per recovered patient-year, and €43 427 and €561 188 per QALY.ConclusionsOut-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.

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

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.

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

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Nutrient Cost-Effectiveness of Fortified Blended Food Aid Products

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Regier ◽  
Brian L. Lindshield ◽  
Nina K. Lilja
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Transportation Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The United States ◽  
Food Aid ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Nutrient Value ◽  
Nutritional Data ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Blended Food

Background: Sorghum-Soy Blend (SSB) and Sorghum-Cowpea Blend (SCB) fortified blended food aid porridge products were developed as alternatives to Corn-Soy Blend Plus (CSB+) and Super Cereal Plus (SC+), the most widely used fortified blended food aid products. However, the cost and nutrient cost-effectiveness of these products procured from different geographical areas have not been determined. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the nutrient cost-effectiveness of SSB and SCB compared to existing fortified blended foods. Methods: Nutritional data as well as ingredient, processing, and transportation cost for SSB, SCB, and existing fortified blended foods were compiled. Using the omega value, the ratio of the fortified blended food’s Nutrient Value Score to the total cost of the fortified blended food divided by an identical ratio of a different fortified blended food or the same fortified blended food produced in a different country and the nutrient cost-effectiveness of each of the fortified blended foods procured in the United States and several African countries were determined. Results: Both CSB+ and SC+ are less expensive than SSB and SCB, but they also have lower Nutrient Value Scores of 7.7 and 8.6, respectively. However, the omega values of CSB+ and SC+ are all above 1 when compared to SSB and SCB, suggesting that the existing fortified blended foods are more nutrient cost-effective. Conclusions: Comparing the nutrient cost-effectiveness of various food aid products could provide valuable information to food aid agencies prior to making procurement decisions.

Economic Evaluation of Ibrutinib Versus Acalabrutinib Versus Zanubrutinib for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 9-10
Author(s):  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Marion Slack ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Mantle Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health States ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

Background . Refractory or relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) is generally associated with poor outcomes; median overall survival (OS) is 4-5 years. First generation Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) (Ibrutinib) and second generation BTKi (acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib) have led to significant improvements in efficacy and safety over conventional chemoimmunotherapy in treating R/R MCL. In the absence of direct head to head clinical trials compare between BTKi, indirect comparisons between the first and second BTKi generations show possible differences in safety and efficacy. We used existing evidence from phase I/II clinical trials for second BTKi generation to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib vs zanubrutinib in treating patients with R/R MCL from the US payer perspective. Methods. A Markov model with two health states (progression-free [PF] and progression or death) was specified. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of PF survival (PFS) from the phase III trial by Dreyling et al. (Lancet 2016) for ibrutinib, the phase II trial by Wang et al. (Lancet 2018) for acalabrutinib, and the phase I/II trial by Tam et al. (Blood 2019) for zanubrutinib were fitted to exponential distributions to extract transition probabilities between the two health states for each drug. Wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) were obtained from RedBook and costs of adverse events management were derived from the literature. The analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon with health utility outcomes and costs discounted at 3.5% per year after the first year. The cost and PFS life years (LYs) and PFS quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for each treatment, the incremental PFS LYs and PFS QALYs gained with acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were estimated in both base and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA: 100,000 simulations). Results. As detailed in the table, acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib were associated with better clinical outcomes than ibrutinib, with incremental PFS LYs gained of 1.61 and 0.98, and incremental PFS QALYs of 1.27 and 0.77, respectively. The incremental costs when comparing acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib with ibrutinib were $110,931and $64,624, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, the ICERs ($61,689/LYg for acalabrutinib; $53,438/LYg for zanubrutinib) and ICURs ($86,750/QALYg for acalabrutinib; $82,897/QALYg for zanubrutinib) were lower than the US willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY for cancer treatment. At WTP of $100,000, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probabilities of acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, and ibrutinib being cost-effective to be 50%, 34%, and 16%, respectively. Conclusions. Acalabrutinib is more cost-effective compared with ibrutinib and zanubrutinib and improves health outcomes more in R/R MCL patients. This analysis using phase I/II trials should be validated as additional trial and real-world evidence about efficacy, safety, and associated health-related quality of life outcomes. Based on the current data, acalabrutinib offers the most cost-effective treatment option in R/R MCL. Disclosures McBride: Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abraham:Janssen: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy.

Cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus erlotinib plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
George Dranitsaris ◽  
Victoria Manax
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Phase ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

353 Background: In a recent phase III trial nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) + gemcitabine (nab-P/G) demonstrated a 1.8 month, or 27%, improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.72, P < 0.001) vs gemcitabine (G) in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). nab-P/G had higher 1 year OS (35% vs 22%) and improved PFS by 1.8 months (HR = 0.69, P < 0.01). nab-P/G is the first taxane based therapy to show a significant OS improvement in a phase III mPC trial. Erlotinib + gemcitabine (E/G) has also demonstrated activity in mPC, with a 0.3 month OS benefit vs G (HR = 0.82, P = 0.04), a 1 year OS of 23% vs 17%, and 0.2 months PFS benefit (HR = 0.77, P = 0.004) vs G. A cost-effectiveness analysis measuring the cost per life year (LY) gained for nab-P/G and E/G was conducted from the US payer perspective. Methods: Costs and clinical outcomes were evaluated fromnab-P/G vs G and E/G vs G trials of mPC. Health care resource use and the management of grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were collected from a large multisite US oncology clinic, expert opinion, and literature (2012 US dollars). Drug cost per cycle was multiplied by the median cycles delivered from the trials for nab-P/G and E/G. Results: Duration of therapy was 4 months for nab-P/G vs 3.9 months for E/G. Total cost for nab-P/G was $24,984 vs $23,044 for E/G, including drug, administration and AE management. AE costs were similar between the two therapies (Table). Differences of > 5% were noted in neutropenia (rates: nab-P/G = 33%; E/G = 24%), neuropathy (nab-P/G = 17%; E/G = 1%), and rash (nab-P/G = 0%; E/G = 6%). The net survival advantage for nab-P/G vs E/G was 1.5 incremental life months gained. Nab-P/G was cost-effective relative to E/G, at a cost of $15,522 per incremental life year gained. Conclusions: nab-P/G is a cost-effective alternative to E/G in mPC, bringing more months of OS at < $16,000 cost per incremental life year gained. [Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

Cephalalgia ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 1473-1482 ◽  
Author(s):  
JS Brown ◽  
G Papadopoulos ◽  
PJ Neumann ◽  
M Price ◽  
M Friedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Health Utility ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Migraine Prevention ◽  
Migraine Frequency ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Cost

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment in the UK. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency, treatment discontinuation and response, preventive and acute medical cost per attack [2005 GBP (£)] and gain in health utility. Outcomes included monthly migraines averted, acute and preventive treatment costs and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Topiramate was associated with 1.8 fewer monthly migraines and a QALY gain of 0.0384. The incremental cost of topiramate vs. no preventive treatment was about £10 per migraine averted and £5700 per QALY. Results are sensitive to baseline monthly migraine frequency, triptan use rate and the gain in utility. Incorporating savings from reduced work loss (about £36 per month) suggests that topiramate would be cost saving compared with no preventive treatment. This analysis suggests that topiramate is a cost-effective treatment for migraine prevention compared with no preventive treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document