Cost-Utility of Tiotropium in Patients With Severe Asthma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendia ◽  
Diana Guerrero Patino
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Severe Asthma ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundAn important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, as tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with severe asthma. Methods A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of two interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. ResultsThe model suggests a potential gain of 1.06 QALYs per patient per year on tiotropium, with a difference of US$ 478 in favor of tiotropium; showing dominance respect to standard therapy. A position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, our base‐case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters Conclusion Add-on therapy with tiotropium was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

scholarly journals Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendía ◽  
Diana Guerrero Patiño
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Severe Asthma ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Dual Therapy ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Discounted Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma. Methods A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. Results The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base‐case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. Conclusion In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20703-e20703
Author(s):  
Ashley Kim ◽  
Beth Devine ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tumor Expression ◽  
The Cost

e20703 Background: Trial results from KEYNOTE-407 have recently led to the FDA approval for pembrolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (pembrolizumab+chemo) in previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC. This is the only first-line indication for squamous NSCLC regardless of tumor expression status. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combination therapy in this setting from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from KEYNOTE-407, we developed a partitioned survival decision model to estimate the lifetime costs and effectiveness of pembrolizumab+chemo vs. chemo alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC. The base case used a Weibull curve selected based on minimum AIC/BIC and best graphical fit to extrapolate in-trial survival to a lifetime horizon. First- and second-line therapy resource use and adverse event (AE) rates were derived from KEYNOTE-407. Utility data and AE management were obtained from published literature and national sources. Direct medical costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. We estimated life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab+chemo resulted in 0.51 more LYs, 0.36 more QALYs, and $233,246 in healthcare costs vs. chemo alone. Costs per LY and QALY gained were $216,180 and $309,004, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to survival and pre-progression utility inputs. In a threshold analysis, we found that the cost of pembrolizumab+chemo would need to be reduced by 24% per course of therapy ($176,175) in order to be cost-effective at $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: Based on current available data, our analysis suggests first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapy in metastatic squamous NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to implied willingness to pay in cancer in the U.S. (ie < $150,000 per QALY). Future studies should reassess cost-effectiveness as trial data mature.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Telaprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Patients in Germany

10.36469/9870 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jona T. Stahmeyer ◽  
Svenja Schauer ◽  
Siegbert Rossol ◽  
Hans Heinrich Wedemeyer ◽  
Daniel Wirth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost

Background: About 400,000-500,000 people are infected with hepatitis C in Germany. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The introduction of first generation protease inhibitors has significantly improved the treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir in Germany. Methods: We used a Markov model on disease progression and natural history to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir compared to standard treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Model structure and inputs were discussed with clinical experts. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of results. Results: The base-case analyses shows that triple therapy results in higher costs (untreated patients: €48,446 vs. €30,691; previously treated patients: €63,228 vs. €48,603) and better outcomes (untreated patients: 16.85 qualily of life years [QALYs] vs. 15.97 QALYs; previously treated patients: 14.16 QALYs vs. 12.89 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €20,131 per QALY and €30,567 per life year gained (LYG) for previously untreated patients. ICER in treatment experienced patients was €7,664 per QALY for relapse patients, €12,506 per QALY for partial responders and €28,429 per QALY for null responders. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Although triple therapy with telaprevir leads to additional costs, there is a high probability of being cost-effective for different thresholds. This health economic analysis makes an important contribution to current debates on cost savings and efficient resource allocation in the German healthcare sector.

scholarly journals P14.12 The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii68-iii69
Author(s):  
X Armoiry ◽  
P Auguste ◽  
C Dussart ◽  
J Guyotat ◽  
M Connock
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Survival Model ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND The addition of novel therapy “Tumor-Treating fields” (TTF) to standard radio-chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) has recently shown superiority over conventional TMZ regimen in patients with glioblastoma. Despite the clinical benefit of TTF, there is a strong concern regarding the cost of this new treatment. A first cost-effectiveness analysis, which was published in 2016, was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial and used a “standard” Markov model. Here, we aimed to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a partitioned survival model design and using the latest effectiveness data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partitioned survival model was developed with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Parametric models were fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall and progression-free survival. These generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. The perspective of the French national health insurance was adopted and the time horizon was 20 years. Base case results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Secondary analyses were undertaken, with the results presented as cost/per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Last, we undertook deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS After applying 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, the base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.507 LY at a incremental cost of €258,695 yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273 / LYG. Secondary analyses yielded an ICER of €667,173/QALY. Sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods showed the model was relatively robust. The model was sensitive to TTF device costs and the parametric model fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall survival. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed TTF has 0% of being cost-effective under conventional thresholds. CONCLUSION Using a partitioned survival model, uprated costs and more mature survival outcomes, TTF when compared to standard radio-chemotherapy with TMZ is not likely to be cost-effective. This has major implications in terms of access of newly eligible patients

Cost-Effectiveness of Deferasirox (Exjade®) Versus No Chelation In Patients with Lower Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): A Canadian Perspective

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4962-4962
Author(s):  
Khalid El Ouagari ◽  
Kristen Migliaccio-Walle ◽  
Helen Lau ◽  
Duygu Bozkaya
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Chelation Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Canadian Healthcare

Abstract Abstract 4962 Introduction: Guidelines for the treatment of MDS recommend iron chelation therapy (ICT) in iron-overloaded lower-risk patients with MDS and candidates for stem cell transplantation. In particular, recent reports indicate that ICT may improve overall survival (OS) in transfusion-dependent patients with low or intermediate-1 (int-1) MDS as per international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) criteria. Deferasirox is a once-daily oral chelator, with easy administration and potentially better compliance. The goal of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared to receiving no chelation therapy in transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk MDS from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deferasirox compared to receiving no chelation therapy in transfusion-dependent patients with lower-risk (eg, IPSS low or int-1) MDS. The data used in the model were obtained from published or presented studies. Model outcomes, including life years (LY) gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, developing complications of iron overload, progressing to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), death, and direct medical costs of ICT, transfusion, complications and AML, were estimated for each treatment group based on a simulation of 1000 patient lives. Finally, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated as the ratio of total medical costs to LY and QALY gains. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the effects of changes in key model parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. The outcomes of the model were evaluated over a 20-year time frame and discounted annually at the rate of 5%. Costs are reported in 2009 Canadian dollars (CAD$). Results: Under base case assumptions, patients receiving deferasirox were less likely to progress to cardiac disease, AML, and death compared to patients receiving no chelation therapy. Adding deferasirox was projected to increase OS by 4.46 years (undiscounted); discounting for time, OS was projected to be increased by 2.93 years. Furthermore, undiscounted QALYs were increased by 4.20 years and discounted QALYs, by 2.99 years. The clinical benefits of deferasirox are obtained at an additional expected discounted total lifetime cost of CAD$185,429. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were therefore estimated to be CAD$62,001/QALY gained and CAD$63,286/LY saved. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed the base case results to be robust with respect to variations in assumptions and estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve shows that deferasirox was preferred to no treatment in 96% of simulations when the willingness to pay for a QALY was CAD$100,000. Conclusion: The results of our analysis indicate that deferasirox offers a cost-effective treatment option for patients with lower-risk MDS as the ICER is within the thresholds that are considered acceptable (ie, $50,000 to $100,000 per QALY gained), from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Additional clinical studies are ongoing to evaluate event-free survival with deferasirox in patients with lower-risk MDS and transfusional iron overload. Disclosures: El Ouagari: Novartis: Employment. Migliaccio-Walle: Novartis: Research Funding. Lau: Novartis: Employment. Bozkaya: Novartis: Research Funding.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raghu U. Varier ◽  
Eman Biltaji ◽  
Kenneth J. Smith ◽  
Mark S. Roberts ◽  
M. Kyle Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVEClostridium difficile infection (CDI) places a high burden on the US healthcare system. Recurrent CDI (RCDI) occurs frequently. Recently proposed guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA) include fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a therapeutic option for RCDI. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of FMT compared with vancomycin for the treatment of RCDI in adults, specifically following guidelines proposed by the ACG and AGA.DESIGNWe constructed a decision-analytic computer simulation using inputs from the published literature to compare the standard approach using tapered vancomycin to FMT for RCDI from the third-party payer perspective. Our effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Because simulated patients were followed for 90 days, discounting was not necessary. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.RESULTSBase-case analysis showed that FMT was less costly ($1,669 vs $3,788) and more effective (0.242 QALYs vs 0.235 QALYs) than vancomycin for RCDI. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that FMT was the dominant strategy (both less expensive and more effective) if cure rates for FMT and vancomycin were ≥70% and <91%, respectively, and if the cost of FMT was <$3,206. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, varying all parameters simultaneously, showed that FMT was the dominant strategy over 10, 000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations.CONCLUSIONSOur results suggest that FMT may be a cost-saving intervention in managing RCDI. Implementation of FMT for RCDI may help decrease the economic burden to the healthcare system.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–7

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sequential daily teriparatide/weekly alendronate compared with alendronate monotherapy for older osteoporotic women with prior vertebral fracture in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Mori ◽  
Carolyn J. Crandall ◽  
Tomoko Fujii ◽  
David A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Vertebral Fracture ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Microsimulation Model ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Summary Using a Markov microsimulation model among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling older osteoporotic Japanese women with prior vertebral fracture over a lifetime horizon, we found that daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years. Purpose Teriparatide has proven efficacy in reducing osteoporotic fractures, but with substantial cost. We examined the cost-effectiveness of sequential teriparatide/alendronate (i.e., daily subcutaneous teriparatide for 2 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 8 years) compared with alendronate monotherapy for 10 years among community-dwelling older osteoporotic women with prior clinical or morphometric vertebral fracture in Japan. Methods Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) from the perspective of a single payer responsible for both public healthcare and long-term care. We assumed a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5million (or $47,500) per QALY in the base case. We modeled the cost of biosimilar teriparatide, which has been available since November 2019 in Japan, assuming the efficacy was the same as that of the brand version. Results In the base case, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, sequential teriparatide/alendronate would become cost-effective with 85%, 50%, and 15% price discounts to teriparatide at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively, compared to the current biosimilar cost. Otherwise, results were especially sensitive to changes that affected efficacy of teriparatide or alendronate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of sequential teriparatide/alendronate being cost-effective were 0%, 1%, and 37% at ages 70, 75, and 80, respectively. Conclusions Among high-risk osteoporotic women in Japan, sequential teriparatide/alendronate was not cost-effective compared with alendronate monotherapy, even with the availability of biosimilar teriparatide.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared With Infliximab in Anti-TNF-α-Naïve Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting Zhou ◽  
Yanan Sheng ◽  
Haijing Guan ◽  
Rui Meng ◽  
Zijing Wang
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Parameter Estimates ◽  
Annual Discount Rate ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tnf Α ◽  
The Cost

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of vedolizumab vs. infliximab in the treatment of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in China.Methods: The costs and effectiveness of vedolizumab and infliximab in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active UC were compared using a hybrid decision tree model and a Markov model. From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study simulated the lifetime health benefits [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and costs (USD) for patients with UC from the induction phase to the maintenance phase, with an annual discount rate of 5%. The clinical efficacy and transition probability data were based on a previously published network meta-analysis. The health utility, surgical risk, biologic drug discontinuation rate, and mortality were derived from previous literature and the Chinese statistical yearbook. The cost data were based on China's drug purchase and biding platform and the results of a survey sent to clinicians in 18 tertiary hospitals. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to validate the robustness of the models' assumptions and specific parameter estimates.Results: The results of the base-case analyses showed that compared with infliximab, vedolizumab led to a gain of 0.25 QALYs (9.56 vs. 9.31 QALYs) and was less expensive by $7,349 ($180,138 vs. 187,487), indicating that the use of vedolizumab was a dominant strategy. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the annual discount rate and health-state costs had the greatest impact, but the results were otherwise consistent with those of the base-case analyses. The PSAs suggested that vedolizumab had a 98.6% probability of being effective at a threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020.Conclusion: Compared with infliximab, vedolizumab appears to be a more cost-effective option in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe, active UC in China.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of evolocumab in patients with ASCVD in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 155-167
Author(s):  
Andrea Marcellusi ◽  
Chiara Bini ◽  
Maria Assunta Rotundo ◽  
Emanuela Arcangeli ◽  
Laura Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Multiple Events ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in addition to standard statin therapy with or without ezetimibe in the treatment of patients with clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with levels of LDL-C above 100 mg/dL. Method: A theoretical cohort of patients was forecast by a Markov model that includes 11 health states for a lifetime horizon. In the base-case, the standard therapy was characterized by statins with or without ezetimibe. Two sub-populations have been considered, Recent MI (Myocardial Infarction in the last year) and Multiple events (population with multiple MI). The results were also presented for a subset of the Multiple events populations consisting of patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction (MI) in the last year. Results: For the Recent MI and Multiple events populations, ICER values of € 39,547 and € 35,744 respectively were estimated. The value of ICER was lower for the Multiple events with MI < 1 year population (€ 29,949). Considering statins with ezetimibe as standard therapy, ICER values were found to be equal to € 39,781, € 35,986 and € 30,190 respectively for the populations Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events with MI < 1 year. Conclusions: The estimated ICER values for the Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events populations with MI < 1 year were below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 40,000, suggesting therefore how the treatment with evolocumab in addition to the standard therapy can be a cost-effective treatment both compared to standard therapy with statins and standard therapy with statins + ezetimibe.

PD30 Cost-Effectiveness Of Stereo-Electroencephalography For Refractory Epilepsy

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 139-140
Author(s):  
Borja Garcia-Lorenzo ◽  
Tasmania del Pino-Sedeño ◽  
Maria M. Trujillo-Martin ◽  
Rodrigo Alberto Rocamora Zuniga ◽  
Juan Erviti López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Refractory Epilepsy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Epileptogenic Zone ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction:Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) has been shown to be a valuable tool for the anatomo-electroclinic definition of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in some patients with medically refractory epilepsy considered for surgery. In Spain, many of those patients are not offered this diagnostic procedure. The objective of our health technology assessment (HTA) report was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of SEEG to define the EZ in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery compared to no SEEG intervention (i.e. remaining with further antiepileptic drugs).Methods:We undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness and safety of SEEG. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals for a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results:The EZ was found in 92 percent of patients who underwent SEEG, 72 percent were eligible for epilepsy surgery and 33 percent were free of seizures after surgery (47 percent of those who received surgery). Any complications related to insertion and monitoring of SEEG and the subsequent intervention occurred in 1.3 percent of patients. In the base case analysis, SEEG led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,368 (USD 12,217) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were robust.Conclusions:SEEG is a cost-effective technology in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery when compared to no SEEG intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document