scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Economic Analyses Studying Rituximab in R-CHOP Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna L. Yoder ◽  
Khalid M. Kamal
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Non Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Economic Studies ◽  
Chop Therapy

Objectives: To explore the use of pharmacoeconomic principles through examination of economic evaluations pertaining to the combination of the monoclonal antibody rituximab with conventional CHOP (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/ vincristine/ prednisone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Evidence-Based Medical Reviews (EBMR), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), and Medline databases to identify all economic studies relating to rituximab in combination with CHOP or CHOP-like regimens. The systematic evaluation also utilized the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument to assess the quality of each study that was included in the final review. Results: Initially, eight studies were retrieved which included the use of rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma treatment. Of these, four studies were excluded as rituximab was used as a stand-alone treatment option. The remaining four studies involved conventional CHOP therapy versus the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. One study employed a cost-effectiveness analysis while the remaining three studies used a cost-utility analysis and reported the outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness evaluation illustrated the dominance of R-CHOP over CHOP-alone in terms of both lower costs and increased life years gained. The cost-utility of R-CHOP in terms of costs/QALYs were below the accepted threshold of 50,000 in international monetary units. Through examination of evaluation principles employed, it is found that valid results are highly dependent on the input data, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses. Clinical decisionmakers must take into account specific inclusions of costs relevant to their own practice setting.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048141
Author(s):  
Sara Mucherino ◽  
Valentina Lorenzoni ◽  
Valentina Orlando ◽  
Isotta Triulzi ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care Interventions: A Review of the Evolution of Methods From 2011 to 2019

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912110111
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Karishini Ramamoorthi ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Life Years

Background: End-of-life care is a driver of increasing healthcare costs; however, palliative care interventions may significantly reduce these costs. Economic evaluations that measure the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) are warranted to inform cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to a comparator and permit evaluation of investment against other therapeutic interventions. Evidence from the literature up to 2011 indicates a scarcity of cost-utility studies in palliative care research. Aim: This literature review evaluates economic studies published between 2011 and 2019 to determine whether the methods of economic evaluations have evolved since 2011. Design and Data Sources: A literature search was completed using CENTRAL, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources for publications between 2011 and 2019. Study characteristics, methodology and key findings of publications that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Quality of studies were assessed using indicators developed by authors of the previous literature review. Results: 46 papers were included for qualitative synthesis. Among them only 6 studies conducted formal cost-effectiveness evaluations-of these 5 measured QALYs and 1 employed probabilistic analyses. In addition, with the exception of 1 costing analysis, all other economic evaluations undertook a healthcare payer perspective. Quality of evidence were comparable to the previous literature review published in 2011. Conclusion: Despite the small increase in the number of cost-utility studies, the methods of palliative care economic evaluations have not evolved significantly since 2011. More probabilistic cost-utility analyses of palliative care interventions from a societal perspective are necessary to truly evaluate the value for money.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost–utility analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Kuukasjärvi ◽  
Pirjo Räsänen ◽  
Antti Malmivaara ◽  
Pasi Aronen ◽  
Harri Sintonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Drug Eluting Stents ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost–utility of DES.Methods:Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost–utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.Results:We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost €4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs €3,260.Conclusions:The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

PP048 Quality Of Health Care Through Integration: Experience Of Cochlear Implantation

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 93-94
Author(s):  
Lyazzat Kosherbayeva ◽  
Aigul Medeulova ◽  
Abdulla Alzhanov
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Rehabilitation Programs ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cost

INTRODUCTION:The State Program for Health Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) “Densaulyk” for 2016–2019 initiated the modernization of primary health care with the introduction of family practice in order to ensure the availability, completeness and quality of health services on the basis of an integrated healthcare system focused on the needs of the population. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the cochlear implantation (CI) programs.METHODS:A literature search was conducted for all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and reviews in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Two reviewers independently evaluated all publications for selection. The analysis included the cost-effectiveness and benefit from the CI program.RESULTS:We analyzed the effectiveness of the services for CI in the RK and other countries (1). In our analysis, we identified that there is no research on Quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) in RK. We found that, in general, the cost of CI and pre-surgical procedures are comparable with other countries. The length of stay in Kazakhstan was much higher (an average of 8 days) compared with other countries (3 days). Also in RK, there were significantly lower prices per hospital day and cost of various consultations. Postoperative costs of other countries consisted of one-third to two-thirds of the total costs for preoperative and implantation stages (2, 3). There was a little information on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in RK.CONCLUSIONS:Economic research like QALYs and CUA are new directions in the healthcare system in the RK. Lack of integration between primary care, rehabilitation and other services leads to difficulties in assessing the effectiveness of CI programs (for example, in our case, there was the restriction of assessment in only postoperative costs).

Cost-of-illness and economic evaluations in axial spondyloarthritis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annelies Boonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Axial Spondyloarthritis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Methodological Principles ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Consideration of costs and budgets plays an increasingly important role in decisions on access to innovative technologies. When clinicians want to influence such decisions, it is essential to understand the information on the burden of the disease and the evidence on cost-effectiveness of technologies. This chapter provides guidance to understanding the key methodological principles of economic evaluations, and describes available evidence on these issues in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). In the prebiologics era, the cost-of-illness for society of ankylosing spondylitis was slightly lower than for rheumatoid arthritis, and substantially lower than chronic low back pain. Cost of sick leave and work disability accounted for up to 75% of total cost-of-illness. Treatment with biologics increased cost-of-illness substantially, but the important gain in quality-adjusted life years resulted in acceptable cost-effectiveness in patients with active disease. There remains a gap in knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and treating axSpA earlier.

scholarly journals The Methodological Quality and Challenges in Conducting Economic Evaluations of Newborn Screening: A Scoping Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Pasquale Cacciatore ◽  
Laurenske A. Visser ◽  
Nasuh Buyukkaramikli ◽  
Catharina P. B. van der Ploeg ◽  
M. Elske van den Akker-van Marle
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Newborn Screening ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Methodological Challenges ◽  
Life Years

Cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost–utility analyses (CUA) have become popular types of economic evaluations (EE) used for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare resource allocation. Newborn screening programs (NBS) can have significant clinical benefits for society, and cost-effectiveness analysis may help to select the optimal strategy among different screening programs, including the no-screening option, on different conditions. These economic analyses of NBS, however, are hindered by several methodological challenges. This study explored the methodological quality in recent NBS economic evaluations and analyzed the main challenges and strategies adopted by researchers to deal with them. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA methodology to identify CEAs and CUAs of NBS. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed quantitatively using a specific guideline for the quality assessment of NBS economic evaluations, by calculating a general score for each EE. Challenges in the studies were then explored using thematic analysis as a qualitative synthesis approach. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative analysis showed that the methodological quality of NBS economic evaluations was heterogeneous. Lack of clear description of items related to results, discussion, and discounting were the most frequent flaws. Methodological challenges in performing EEs of neonatal screenings include the adoption of a long time horizon, the use of quality-adjusted life years as health outcome measure, and the assessment of costs beyond the screening interventions. The results of this review can support future economic evaluation research, aiding researchers to develop a methodological guidance to perform EEs aimed at producing solid results to inform decisions for resource allocation in neonatal screening.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of online computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy without support for depression in primary care: randomised trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. H. Gerhards ◽  
L. E. de Graaf ◽  
L. E. Jacobs ◽  
J. L. Severens ◽  
M. J. H. Huibers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Efficient Treatment ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundEvidence about the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (CCBT) is still limited. Recently, we compared the clinical effectiveness of unsupported, online CCBT with treatment as usual (TAU) and a combination of CCBT and TAU (CCBT plus TAU) for depression. The study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (ISRCTN47481236).AimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of CCBT compared with TAU and CCBT plus TAU.MethodCosts, depression severity and quality of life were measured for 12 months. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed from a societal perspective. Uncertainty was dealt with by bootstrap replications and sensitivity analyses.ResultsCosts were lowest for the CCBT group. There are no significant group differences in effectiveness or quality of life. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses tend to be in favour of CCBT.ConclusionsOn balance, CCBT constitutes the most efficient treatment strategy, although all treatments showed low adherence rates and modest improvements in depression and quality of life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document