scholarly journals Ultra-radical surgery compared to standard surgical treatment for women with advanced ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanna Bettoli ◽  
Andrew Phillips ◽  
Sudha Sundar ◽  
Carole Cummins ◽  
Anish Bali
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Surgery ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Objective To compare current surgical practice for women with AOC to ultra-radical surgery; to assess whether the new approach would be cost-effective under NICE guidelines of approximately £20,000/QALY. Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting NHS, using data from a variety of sources. Population Patients with advanced ovarian cancer (FIGO stages IIIC-IV). Methods A decision analytic model (microsimulation model) was built to examine the Objective; deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test the susceptibilities of the baseline model and its assumptions. Main Outcome Measures ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Results The standard model yielded an ICER of £5325.06; this is in spite of an associated overall decrease in utility due to predicted increase in surgical mortality. The parameters with the most significant impact on the ICER are the cost of ultra-radical surgery, the utility associated with progression-free survival, and the probability of death from ultra-radical surgery. Conclusions Ultra-radical surgery is cost-effective under NICE willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000; the costs of ultra-radical surgery are bound to decrease as centres specialise further, and its effectiveness is also likely due to increase with development of newer techniques and more surgical training.

At What Cost Does a Potential Survival Advantage of Bevacizumab Make Sense for the Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 1247-1251 ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Cohn ◽  
Kenneth H. Kim ◽  
Kimberly E. Resnick ◽  
David M. O'Malley ◽  
J. Michael Straughn
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Bowel Perforation ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology Group ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Purpose To determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for the primary treatment of advanced ovarian cancer can be cost effective. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the three arms of the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 218 study (paclitaxel plus carboplatin [PC], PC plus bevacizumab [PCB], and PCB plus bevacizumab maintenance [PCB+B]). Actual and estimated costs of treatment plus the potential costs of complications were established for each strategy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and bowel perforation rates were taken from recently reported results of GOG 218. Sensitivity analysis was performed for pertinent uncertainties in the model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were estimated. Results For the 600 patients entered onto each arm of GOG 218 at the baseline estimates of PFS and bowel perforation, the cost of PC was $2.5 million, compared with $21.4 million for PCB and $78.3 million for PCB+B. These costs led to an ICER of $479,712 per PF-LYS for PCB and $401,088 per PF-LYS for PCB+B. When the cost of bevacizumab was reduced to 25% of baseline, the ICER of PCB+B fell below $100,000 per PF-LYS. ICERs were not substantially reduced when the perforation rate was equal across all arms. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Treatment with maintenance bevacizumab leads to improved PFS but is associated with both direct and indirect costs. The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer is primarily dependent on drug costs.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBC) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 419-419
Author(s):  
Ali Raza Khaki ◽  
Yong Shan ◽  
Richard Nelson ◽  
Sapna Kaul ◽  
John L. Gore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Weighted Average ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

419 Background: Multiple single-arm clinical trials have shown promising pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with neoadjuvant ICIs in MIBC. However, ICIs remain costly. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing neoadjuvant ICIs with CBC. Methods: We applied a decision analytic simulation model with a health care payer perspective and two-year time horizon to compare neoadjuvant ICIs vs CBC. For the primary analysis we compared pembrolizumab with dose dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVAC). We performed a secondary analysis with gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) as CBC and exploratory analyses with atezolizumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab as ICIs (vs both ddMVAC and GC). We input pCR rates from trials (ICIs) or a weighted average of prior studies (CBC) and costs from average sales price. Outcomes of interest included costs, 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per 2-year RFS. A threshold analysis estimated a pCR rate or price reduction for ICI to be cost-effective and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Results of the cost effectiveness analysis are shown in the table. The incremental cost of pembrolizumab compared with ddMVAC was $8,042 resulting in an incremental improvement of 0.66% in 2-year RFS for an ICER of $1,218,485 per 2-year RFS. A pCR of 71% or a 26% reduction in cost of pembrolizumab would render it more cost-effective with an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. GC required a 96% pembrolizumab cost reduction to achieve an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. Atezolizumab appeared to be more cost-effective than ddMVAC, even though the 2yr RFS was 0.66% worse. Conclusions: ICIs were not cost-effective as neoadjuvant therapies, except when atezolizumab was compared with ddMVAC. Pembrolizumab would approach cost-effective thresholds with 26% or 96% reduction in cost when compared to ddMVAC and GC, respectively. Randomized clinical trials, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to better understand the value of ICIs as neoadjuvant treatments. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rehabilitation Methods for Patients with Stroke

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzaneh Miri ◽  
Nader Jahanmehr ◽  
Reza Goudarzi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stroke Unit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Rehabilitation Service ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Rehabilitation Strategy ◽  
At Home

Abstract Aims: This study evaluated and compared the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in patients with stroke in the three alternatives of hospitals, units and homes due to the fact that one of the stroke management challenges is how to provide a rehabilitation service to these patients in Iran. Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a health system. A Markov model with a 20-year time horizon in 3-month cycles was used to analyze the costs and outcomes. Cost data were collected from the 210 patients undergoing rehabilitation in the hospital, home and unit. Utility data were extracted from previously published literature with the same setting. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by calculating ICER using TreeAge Software. Basic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted at the end. Results: The average cost of rehabilitation in home strategy ($ 2306) was less than hospital ($2955) and unit ($3485) strategies. Furthermore, the utility of home strategy (26.03) was 8 units higher than hospital utility (17.99) and 19 units higher than utility of the stroke unit (7.03). The Acer values of hospital, stroke unit and home groups were $11424, $33159 and $7233 per utility, respectively. According to the results, the home-based rehabilitation strategy is cost effective compared to hospital and unit rehabilitation strategy. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis also showed that the ICER of home strategy is always cost-effective than the other strategies. Limitation: : limitation of the present study was the reliance on utility values of other studies. Conclusion: Rehabilitation at home is the most cost-effective strategy for stroke patients. Given the high rates of this disease in Iran and the high cost of it, it is suggested that policy makers lay the groundwork for providing these services at home.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for first-degree relatives of patients with bicuspid aortic valve

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Tessler ◽  
M Leshno ◽  
A Shmueli ◽  
S Shpitzen ◽  
R Durst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Bicuspid Aortic Valve ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
First Degree Relatives ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Introduction Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the commonest congenital heart valve defect, found in 1% to 2% of the general population and associated with life-threatening complications. Given the high heritability index of BAV, many experts recommend echocardiography for first-degree relatives (FDRs) of an index patient. However, the cost-effectiveness of such cascade screening for BAV has not been fully evaluated. Materials and methods Using a decision-analytic model, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of echocardiographic screening of FDRs of BAV index cases. Data on BAV probabilities and BAV complications among FDRs were derived from our institution's BAV familial cohort and from the relevant literature on population-based BAV cohorts with long-term follow-up. Health gain was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost inputs were based on list prices and literature data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in the model's variables. Results and disscusion Screening of FDRs was found to be the dominant strategy, being more effective and less costly than no screening, with savings of €208 and gains of 1.6 QALYs. Results were sensitive to the full range of reported BAV rates among FDRs across the literature, with the benefit gradually decreasing from the screening age of 55 years, with trend shifting at the age of 69. Conclusions This economic evaluation model revealed that echocardiographic screening of FDRs of BAV index case is not only clinically important but also highly cost effective and cost-saving. Health gains could be achieved from initiating screening program, along with costs saving. Sensitivity analysis supported the model's robustness, suggesting its generalization. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research fellowships grant

Reconstruction After Salvage Total Laryngectomy: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 019459982093626
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Brian Cameron ◽  
Margaret Nurimba ◽  
Joel W. Hay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Total Laryngectomy ◽  
Primary Closure ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health Utilities ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Pectoralis Flap

Objective To determine the most cost-effective reconstruction method after salvage total laryngectomy. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis Setting Tertiary care hospitals with head and neck oncologic and reconstructive surgeons. Subjects and Methods We constructed a Markov-based decision model to compare reconstruction by primary closure to pectoralis flap and free flap after salvage total laryngectomy. The model simulated disease with transition probabilities and health utilities found in primary literature and estimated the average overall cost of each reconstructive method using Medicare billing codes. Effectiveness was compared using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to scrutinize the conclusions of our model. Reconstruction methods were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). In the United States, less than $150,000 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective (2019 US dollars). Results Our base case analysis revealed that primary closure was less expensive ($44,370) and yielded more QALYs (0.91) than both pectoralis ($45,163, 0.81 QALYs) and free flap ($46,244, 0.85 QALYs), making it the most cost-effective option. Between flaps, free flap was cost-effective over pectoralis flap (ICER = $27,025/QALY gained). Sensitivity analyses showed primary closure as cost-effective 69% of the time over either flap. These conclusions were sensitive to the health utilities (quality of life) of each method of reconstruction. Conclusion Tissue flaps to augment closure after salvage total laryngectomy are not always the most cost-effective reconstructive option. The long-term morbidity of flap surgery oftentimes outweighs the benefit of lowering fistula rates after surgery. Careful consideration must be taken when advising patients of their reconstructive options.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness Analysis in R Using a Multi-state Modeling Survival Analysis Framework: A Tutorial

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Williams ◽  
James D. Lewsey ◽  
Andrew H. Briggs ◽  
Daniel F. Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Property ◽  
R Package ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Survival Models ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Modeling Approach ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Markov Decision

This tutorial provides a step-by-step guide to performing cost-effectiveness analysis using a multi-state modeling approach. Alongside the tutorial, we provide easy-to-use functions in the statistics package R. We argue that this multi-state modeling approach using a package such as R has advantages over approaches where models are built in a spreadsheet package. In particular, using a syntax-based approach means there is a written record of what was done and the calculations are transparent. Reproducing the analysis is straightforward as the syntax just needs to be run again. The approach can be thought of as an alternative way to build a Markov decision-analytic model, which also has the option to use a state-arrival extended approach. In the state-arrival extended multi-state model, a covariate that represents patients’ history is included, allowing the Markov property to be tested. We illustrate the building of multi-state survival models, making predictions from the models and assessing fits. We then proceed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we show how to create 2 common methods of visualizing the results—namely, cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The analysis is implemented entirely within R. It is based on adaptions to functions in the existing R package mstate to accommodate parametric multi-state modeling that facilitates extrapolation of survival curves.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic disease assessment in ovarian cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5556-5556
Author(s):  
Ross Harrison ◽  
Scott B. Cantor ◽  
Mariana Villanueva ◽  
Rudy Sam Suidan ◽  
Charlotte C. Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Disease Assessment ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Alternative Strategies ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

5556 Background: Laparoscopic assessment of disease resectability can be useful for treatment planning for patients [pts] with advanced ovarian cancer [OC] but may be associated with added cost. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a payer perspective to compare (1) a conventional strategy, where standard new pt evaluation was used to assign pts to either primary cytoreduction [PCS] or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction [NACT], and (2) an alternative approach, where pts considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to evaluate disease resectability using a validated scoring system, who were then triaged to either PCS or NACT based on this evaluation. Diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival [PFS] were included in the model. We derived model parameters from the literature and our institution’s experience with laparoscopic triage. Utility estimates for health states related to primary treatment were assessed prospectively and taken from the literature. Costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted progression-free life years [QPFLYs]. We performed multiple sensitivity analyses. Results: Under baseline model parameters, the expected cost of treating one pt under the conventional and alternative strategies was $26,539 and $26,653, respectively. The expected quality-adjusted progression-free survival for pts in the conventional and alternative strategies was 0.70 and 0.94 QPFLYs, respectively. The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness was $473.97 per QPFLY saved. The alternative strategy became cost saving if pts found to have resectable disease by laparoscopy underwent cytoreduction during the same procedure. The conventional strategy may be preferred if PCS increased PFS over NACT by ≥5 months. Conclusions: For newly-diagnosed advanced stage OC pts, laparoscopic assessment of disease resectability prior to PCS was a cost-effective strategy. A conventional strategy may be preferred if PCS produced substantially longer PFS. Sensitivity analysis suggests the benefit of utilizing laparoscopic triage is influenced by mitigation of serious perioperative morbidity and associated costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document