Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a web-based computer-tailored intervention for prevention of binge drinking among Spanish adolescents

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Magdalena Vargas-Martínez ◽  
Marta Lima-Serrano ◽  
Marta Trapero-Bertran
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Binge Drinking ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Tailored Intervention ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Life Years

Abstract BackgroundWorldwide, binge drinking (BD) today follows being a public health concern among adolescents. This study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a web-based computer-tailored intervention to prevent BD in adolescence.MethodsThe sample was drawn from a study evaluating the Alerta Alcohol programme. The population consisted of adolescents aged 15–19. Decision tree analysis was used to estimate costs and health outcomes, as measured by number of BD occasions and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Ratios were also calculated from National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and for a time horizon of four months. Multivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis of best/worst scenarios by subgroups was used to account for uncertainty.ResultsThe intervention was dominant from the societal perspective resulting in savings of €7,986.37 by one BD occasion averted per month. With regard to Incremental Cost-Utility Ratios, the intervention resulted in an incremental cost of €71.05 per QALY gained from NHS perspective and this was dominant, from societal perspective, resulting in savings of €34,126.64 per QALY gained in comparison with the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that the intervention resulted dominant for girls from both perspectives, and for those who were older (17 years or more) from NHS perspective.ConclusionComputer-tailored feedback is a cost-effective way to reduce BD and to increase QALYs among adolescents. However, long-term follow-up would probably be needed to capture major changes both in reduction of BD and in increasing of health-related quality of life.Trial registration(ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT03288896. Registration date: September 20, 2017. “Retrospectively registered”.

scholarly journals Web-based intervention for depressive symptoms in adults with types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: a health economic evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 212 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Nobis ◽  
David Daniel Ebert ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Active Control ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Active Control Group ◽  
Comorbid Depression ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundWeb-based interventions are effective in reducing depression. However, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is scarce.AimsThe aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a web-based intervention (GET.ON M.E.D.) for individuals with diabetes and comorbid depression compared with an active control group receiving web-based psychoeducation.MethodWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis with treatment response as the outcome and a cost-utility analysis with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) alongside a randomised controlled trial with 260 participants.ResultsAt a willingness-to-pay ceiling of €5000 for a treatment response, the intervention has a 97% probability of being regarded as cost-effective compared with the active control group. If society is willing to pay €14 000 for an additional QALY, the intervention has a 51% probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionsThis web-based intervention for individuals with diabetes and comorbid depression demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective compared with an active control group.Declaration of interestS.N., D.D.E., D.L., M.B. and B.F. are stakeholders of the Institute for Online Health Trainings, which aims to transfer scientific knowledge related to this research into routine healthcare.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of guideline-based stepped and collaborative care versus treatment as usual for patients with depression – a cluster-randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Brettschneider ◽  
Daniela Heddaeus ◽  
Maya Steinmann ◽  
Martin Härter ◽  
Birgit Watzke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Guideline ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract Objective Depression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped-care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline “Unipolar Depression” has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus standard care in depression. Methods This prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered. Results In the IG, adjusted mean total costs (+5,016; SE: €2,691) and effects (+0.008 QALY; SE: 0.02) were higher than in the CG; yet, differences were not statistically significant. Significantly increased costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services. Significantly increased total and indirect costs in the IG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were unfavourable and the probability of cost-effectiveness was low, except for the group with moderate depression (70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY). Conclusions We found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention. However, we identified indicators that the intervention works according to the aims of the National Treatment Guideline.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Ruxolitinib vs Best Available Therapy in the Treatment of Myelofibrosis in Spain

10.36469/9808 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-174
Author(s):  
María Teresa Gómez-Casares ◽  
Juan Carlos Hernández-Boluda ◽  
Antonio Jiménez-Velasco ◽  
Joaquin Martínez-López ◽  
María Giovanna Ferrario ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Primary Myelofibrosis ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Primary myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare hematologic disease belonging to the group of Philadelphia-negative chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms. Identification of the Janus Kinase (JAK) gene mutations inaugurated a new era in the targeted therapy of myeloproliferative diseases. Ruxolitinib is the first JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor specifically approved for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or symptoms in adult patients with primary myelofibrosis. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib vs best available therapy (BAT) in MF patients in Spain. Methods: A decision-tree and Markov model were adapted to the Spanish setting to assess the cost-effectiveness of ruxolitinib vs. BAT on a lifetime horizon (≤15 years) from the societal perspective, while healthcare system perspective was included in the one-way sensitivity analysis. The population was assumed to be similar to that of the COMFORT-II clinical trial (CT), which was also the source of treatment efficacy data. BAT composition was derived from the same CT and validated with Spanish experts. Utilities were derived from the COMFORT-I CT. Costs included treatment, management, hospitalizations, emergency and outpatient visits, as well as adverse events and end-of-life costs. Additionally, costs associated to productivity loss were taken into account. Resource use was validated with experts and costs were extracted from Spanish sources. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also performed to evaluate the consistency of the results under the uncertainty or variability of the input data. Results: Patients on ruxolitinib accumulated 6.1 life years gained (LYGs), resulting in 73% extra life-years compared to patients treated with BAT (3.5LYs gained). Ruxolitinib provided 4.4 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with a 99% improvement compared to BAT (2.2 QALYs). This analysis gave an incremental cost of €47 199 per LYG and an incremental cost of €55 616 per QALY gained from the societal perspective. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib would be cost-effective in Spain according to the end-of-life criteria defined by the NICE and commonly referred for Spain (cost-effectiveness threshold of €61 500/QALY), in line with results published for other European countries.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed (PEM) compared to current standards of care in 2nd-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6540-6540 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bhalla ◽  
C. Hibbert ◽  
J. Watkins ◽  
S. Beard ◽  
M. Cetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Current Standards

6540 Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed (PEM) compared with current standards of care (SOC) in 2nd-line advanced NSCLC from a UK perspective. The SOC selected for the evaluation were: (i) docetaxel (DOC) as it is the standard active therapy in the UK and is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and (ii) best supportive care (BSC) as the majority patients in the UK who fail 1st-line therapy do not receive further chemotherapy. Methods: The analytic technique used was a cost-utility analysis (CUA) in the form of a Markov model. Utilities were generated from 100 members of the general public, considering tumor response status and toxicity, in accordance with the standard NICE appraisal methodology. Clinical inputs were derived from a pooled analysis phase III clinical trial data. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and UK national databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented for both life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life- years (QALY) gained. Conclusions: The incremental cost per LY and cost per QALY for pemetrexed in 2nd-line NSCLC are below £20,000, compared to docetaxel and BSC. Based on its survival and toxicity benefits PEM is a cost-effective option in within the UK. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

CyberKnife for prostate cancer: Is it cost-effective?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Parthan ◽  
N. Pruttivarasin ◽  
D. Taylor ◽  
D. Davies ◽  
G. Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Lifetime Costs

87 Background: The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (CK) compared to surgery and radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) from a third-party and societal perspective. Methods: For patients > 65 yrs with localized PC, a Markov model compared treatment with CK, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), surgery or proton therapy (PT). Following treatment, patients were at risk of long-term toxicity: genitourinary (GU); gastrointestinal (GI); and sexual dysfunction (SD). Long-term toxicity was defined as adverse events >grade 2 on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale occurring at least 12 months following treatment. Markov states included all possible combinations of GI, GU, and SD long-term toxicities, no toxicity, and death. During each year patients remained in the same Markov state or died. Costs and utilities were assigned using published sources. Toxicity probabilities were derived using meta-analytical techniques to pool results from multiple studies. It was assumed that long-term disease control would not differ across treatments. The model projected expected lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness of CK vs comparators as cost per QALY gained. Costs from societal perspective included lost productivity. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Surgery was the least expensive treatment option followed by CK. CK patients had higher expected QALYs (8.11) than other treatment options (7.72- 8.06). From a payer perspective, total lifetime costs were $25,904, $22,295, $38,915, and $58,100 for CK, surgery, IMRT and PT, respectively. Incremental cost per QALY gained for CK versus Surgery was $9,200/QALY. Compared to IMRT and PT, CK was less costly and resulted in higher QALYs (dominance). At a threshold of $50,000/QALY, CK was cost effective in 86%, 79%, and 91% of simulations compared to surgery, IMRT, and PT, respectively. From a societal perspective, CK costs $4,200/QALY compared to surgery and remained dominant vs IMRT and PT. Results were most sensitive to costs of surgery and CK. Conclusions: Initial CK costs are higher than surgery, but CK patients have better quality of life. CK patients have lower lifetime costs and higher QALYs than IMRT and PT patients. [Table: see text]

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambica Parmar ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Urban Emmenegger ◽  
Martin Smoragiewicz ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality, vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. Methods: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide + ADT, as compared to ADT alone for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. Results: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219,051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions >50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

Economic rationale on the use of m-Health in uncontrolled hypertensive outpatients: from three months and beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ionov ◽  
O.V Zhukova ◽  
N.E Zvartau ◽  
A.O Konradi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality

Abstract Background/Introduction Current scientific data show that blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with/without additional counseling is rather effective in hypertension (HTN) management. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term social sequelae are lacking. This is because of diverse technologies and economic climate which make results highly heterogeneous across countries. Purpose To construct predictive model of long-term outcomes and to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of BP telemonitoring and remote counseling (BPTM) using m-Health in Russian population of outpatients with HTN. Methods Total of 240 patients were randomized (2:1) to either BPTM (n=160, mean age 47 y.o.) and to usual care (UC, n=80, mean age 49 y.o.) with baseline, three-month follow-up clinic visits combined with ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). BPTM consisted of m-Health tool for patients, desktop module for clinicians. It enables BP data transfer and analysis, secure web chatting to support and counsel. Main outcomes were change in office, ambulatory systolic (S) BP and rate of BP control. A Markov cohort-based (1000 patients per study arm) model was developed and adopted a 10-year time horizon with 12-month time cycles. All patients started at a non-complicated HTN “well” state with a certain possibility of disease progression in a number of health states over a discrete time period. BPTM was compared with usual care in terms of 10-year healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) using a Ministry of Health of Russian Federation perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) represented economic analysis. Results BPTM was associated with steeper decrease in office, ambulatory SBP (−16,8 mm Hg and −8,9 mm Hg, respectively; p<0,05) with the same treatment intensity (2,4 drugs per patient). There were 102 (64%) and 11 (14%) patients with fully controlled HTN in BPTM and UC groups, respectively (OR 11,03 95% CI [5,4–22,5]). An ICER of BPTM resulted in additional 11,1 EUR/1 mm Hg/year. It is expected that BPTM will be at least 76% cost-effective as per relevant Russian willingness-to-pay threshold. In a modelled 10-year period BPTM was life-saving (9,71 vs 9,6 life years gained) and cheap (cost of illness 1,5 mln vs 2,1 mln EUR). BPTM was also more valuable (8,31 versus 7,82 QALYs gained) so the ICUR was 3601,47 EUR/QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness was further confirmed by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion BPTM seems to be clinically and economically effective when implemented into clinical practice. It provides greater BP reduction, improves BP control short-term. In a long-term it is likely to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cost-effective way. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm these pilot results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Russian Scientific Foundation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document