scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of caplacizumab in the new standard of care for immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 43-52
Author(s):  
Giovanni Di Minno ◽  
Roberto Ravasio
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of caplacizumab in combination with plasmapheresis (PEX) and immunosuppression compared to PEX and immunosuppression in the treatment of acute episodes of iTTP. Methods: A Markov model was used to conduct the CEA from the perspective of the hospital, over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data derived from HERCULES trial and a systematic literature review. Economic input included direct costs only. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature. Data on healthcare resources and costs were retrieved from HERCULES trial, literature, TTP guidelines and Italian tariffs. A sensitivity analysis was conducted. The cost-effectiveness probability was tested for several options of discount levels considering a suggested willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 60,000 in Italy. Results: The use of caplacizumab in combination with PEX and immunosuppression is associated with a positive difference in survival of 3.27 life years (24.53 vs 21.26) and in quality of life of 3.06 QALY (22.01 vs 18.96) when compared to PEX and immunosuppression. Caplacizumab leads to an ICER per life years of € 41,653 and an ICER per QALY of € 44,572. For the suggested WTP threshold, the probability of caplacizumab being cost-effective is 82.4% (no discount), 92.8% (15% discount), 95.3% (20% discount), 96.9% (25% discount) and 98.2% (30% discount). Conclusions: Caplacizumab in addition to PEX and immunosuppression is cost-effective, allowing the hospital to achieve greater efficiency in managing the burden of a life-threatening disease such as iTTP.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of a physician deployment program to improve access to healthcare in rural and underserved areas in the Philippines

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033455
Author(s):  
Anton L.V. Avanceña ◽  
Kim Patrick S Tejano ◽  
David W. Hutton
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Rural Municipality ◽  
Healthcare Perspective ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of Doctor to the Barrios (DTTB), a physician deployment program in the Philippines.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree models with a lifetime time horizon and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.SettingSocietal and healthcare perspectives.PopulationHypothetical cohort of children under 5 years in two provinces (Aklan and Nueva Ecija) and in a representative rural municipality.ParticipantsNone.InterventionsDTTB’s impact on paediatric pneumonia and diarrhoea outcomes compared with a scenario without DTTB.Main outcome measuresCosts, effectiveness (in terms of lives saved and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsDTTB is cost-effective in the two provinces that were included in the study from societal and healthcare perspectives. Looking at a representative rural municipality, base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggest that DTTB has an ICER of 27 192 per QALY gained from a societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the base case ICER of DTTB is Philippine pesos (PHP) 71 839 per QALY gained and PHP 2 064 167 per life saved, and 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations produced similar average estimates. The cost per QALY of DTTB from a healthcare perspective is lower than the WHO recommended willingness-to-pay threshold of 100% of the country’s per-capita gross domestic product.ConclusionsDTTB can be a cost-effective intervention, but its value varies by setting and the conditions of the municipality where it is implemented. By focusing on a narrow set of paediatric outcomes, this study has likely underestimated the health benefits of DTTB. Additional research is needed to understand the full extent of DTTB’s impact on the health of communities in rural and remote areas. Future cost-effectiveness analysis should empirically estimate various parameters and include other health conditions in addition to pneumonia and diarrhoea in children.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analyses for mirtazapine and sertraline in dementia: randomised controlled trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Romeo ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
Jennifer Hellier ◽  
Michael Dewey ◽  
Clive Ballard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundDepression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.MethodA pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0–13 weeks and 0–39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.ResultsThere were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.ConclusionsIn terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.

scholarly journals Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

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 Non-Mydriatic Ultrawide- Field Fundus Photography versus Pharmacological Pupil Dilatation in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (5) ◽  
pp. 818-824
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) causes blindness of the population in many countries worldwide. Early detection and treatment of this disease via a DR screening program is the best way to secure the vision. An annual screening program using pharmacological pupil dilatation becomes the standard method. Recently, non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography (UWF) has been proposed as a choice for DR screening. However, there was no cost-effectiveness study between the standard DR screening and this UWF approach. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness between UWF and pharmacological pupil dilatation in terms of hospital and societal perspectives. Materials and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that visited the ophthalmology clinic at Chulabhorn Hospital for DR screening were randomized using simple randomization method. The patients were interviewed by a trained interviewer for general and economic information. The clinical characteristics of DR and staging were recorded. Direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and informal care costs due to DR screening were recorded. Cost analyses were calculated for the hospital and societal perspectives. Results: The present study presented the cost-effectiveness analyses of UWF versus pharmacological pupil dilatation. Cost-effectiveness analysis from the hospital perspective showed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UWF to be –13.87. UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening in the societal perspective when compared with pharmacologically pupil dilatation with the ICER of 76.46, under the threshold of willingness to pay. Conclusion: The UWF was a cost-effective mean in DR screening. It can reduce screening duration and bypass post-screening blurred vision. The results suggested that UWF could be a viable option for DR screening. Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy, Diabetic retinopathy screening, Non-mydriatic ultrawide-field fundus photography, Cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis for preventing hepatitis B virus reactivation-related death in Japan

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Fujita ◽  
S Kusumoto ◽  
M Sugiyama ◽  
T Fujisawa ◽  
M Mizokami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Hbv Reactivation ◽  
Monitoring Strategy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
B Virus ◽  
Tenofovir Alafenamide ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background There is no worldwide standard recommendation for preventing hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation for patients with resolved infection treated with an anti-CD20 antibody for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness between two commonly used strategies to prevent HBV reactivation-related death. Methods The two strategies compared were prophylactic antiviral therapy (Pro NAT) and HBV DNA monitoring followed by on-demand antiviral therapy (HBV DNA monitoring) using entecavir (Entecavir, a generic drug for Baraclude). Effectiveness was defined as the prevention of death due to HBV reactivation and costs were calculated under the health insurance system of Japan as of April 2018 using Markov model. A cost-minimization analysis, one of the cost-effectiveness analyses, was applied, since the effectiveness was the same between the two strategies according to a meta-analysis. To consider the effect of uncertainty for each parameter, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. In the scenario analysis, costs were calculated using lamivudine (Zefix) or tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy) instead of entecavir. All analyses were done using TreeAge Pro 2019 (TreeAge Software, Inc., MA, USA). Results Estimated costs per patient during the 30 months after initiation of chemotherapy for lymphoma were 1,513 USD with Pro NAT and 1,265 USD with HBV DNA monitoring. A PSA revealed that HBV DNA monitoring was more consistently cost-effective compared with Pro NAT when some parameters were set randomly according to probability distributions. In our scenario analysis, costs of Pro NAT and HBV DNA monitoring were calculated as 2,762 and 1,401 USD using lamivudine, 4,857 and 1,629 USD using tenofovir alafenamide. Conclusions Our cost-effectiveness analysis shows that an HBV DNA monitoring strategy using entecavir should be recommended for preventing HBV reactivation-related death in Japan. Key messages Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that HBV DNA monitoring was more cost-effective compared to Pro NAT; this result was consistent with PSA. HBV DNA monitoring strategy should be recommended to prevent HBV reactivation-related death for the patients with resolved HBV infection in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis: role and implications

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
G Marsden ◽  
D Wonderling
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Varicose Vein ◽  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Health Gain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is often misperceived to be a cost-cutting exercise. The intention of CEA is not to identify and implement cheap technologies, but rather those which offer maximum health gain, subject to available funds. Such analysis is crucial for decision making in health care, as tight budget constraints mean spending in one area of healthcare displaces spending elsewhere. Therefore in order to achieve the greatest health gain for the overall population, treatments must be selected which provide the greatest health gain within the available funds. Summary: The relevance of CEA in health care systems is explained, using varicose vein treatment in the UK NHS as an example. Treatment for varicose veins is often not commissioned to at a local level, most likely because it is misperceived to be a cosmetic problem. However, this view does not take into account the impact of quality of life. CEA balances costs against a quantitative measure of health related quality of life, and could therefore be used to determine whether it is cost-effective to provide varicose vein treatment. The current literature on the cost-effectiveness of varicose vein treatment is reviewed, and an overview of cost-effectiveness principles is provided. Concepts such as economic modelling, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), net monetary benefit (NMB) and sensitivity analysis are explained, using examples relevant to varicose veins where appropriate. Conclusion: This article explains how, far from cutting costs and sacrificing patient health, CEA provides a useful tool to maximise the health of the population in the face of ever tightening budget constraints. CEA could be used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the various treatment options for varicose veins, and efficiencies realised.

scholarly journals Interpreting cost-effectiveness ratios in a cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-tailored prostate screening: A critique of Callender et al.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
James F. O'Mahony
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Callender et al. recently published a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a risk-tailored approach to prostate cancer screening. It considers the costs and effects of prostate cancer screening offered to all men aged 55-69 without any risk selection and, alternatively, over a range of risk-tailored strategies in which screen eligibility is determined by a varying threshold of disease risk. The analysis finds that the strategy of screening men once they reach a 10-year absolute risk of disease of 5% or more is cost-effective in a UK context. I believe there are several problems with the study, mostly stemming from an incorrect interpretation of the cost-effectiveness estimates. I show that one reinterpretation of their results indicates that screening is much less cost-effective than the original analysis suggests, indicating that screening should be restricted to a much smaller group of higher risk men. More broadly, I explain the challenges of attempting to meaningfully reinterpret the originally published results due to the simulation of non-mutually exclusive intervention strategies. Finally, I consider the relevance of considering sufficient alternative screening intensities. This critique highlights the need for appropriate interpretation of cost-effectiveness results for policymakers, especially as risk stratification within screening becomes increasingly feasible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document