scholarly journals Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Brue ◽  
Philippe Chanson ◽  
Patrice Rodien ◽  
Brigitte Delemer ◽  
Delphine Drui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Somatostatin Analogues ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Efficient Treatment ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveEfficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients.MethodsA Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsThe incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results.ConclusionFGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT IN THAILAND

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 584-592
Author(s):  
Chalakorn Chanatittarat ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
Naraporn Prayoonwiwat ◽  
Sasitorn Siritho ◽  
Pakamas Pasogpakdee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Objectives:Although interferon beta-1a (IFNß−1a), 1b (IFNß−1b), and fingolimod have been approved as multiple sclerosis (MS) treatments, they have not yet been included on the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) formulary in Thailand. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of MS treatments compared with best supportive care (BSC) based on a societal perspective in Thailand.Methods:A Markov model with cost and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length was conducted for relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) patients. Cost and outcome data were obtained from published studies, collected from major MS clinics in Thailand and a discount rate of 3 percent was applied. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results:When compared with BSC, the ICERs for patients with RRMS aged 35 years receiving fingolimod, IFNβ−1b, and IFNβ−1a were 33,000, 12,000, and 42,000 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, respectively. At the Thai societal willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of USD 4,500 per QALY gained, BSC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (49 percent), whereas IFNβ−1b and fingolimod treatments showed lower chance being cost-effective at 25 percent and 18 percent, respectively.Conclusions:Compared with fingolimod and interferon treatments, BSC remains to be the most cost-effective treatment for RRMS in Thailand based on a WTP threshold of USD 4,500 per QALY gained. The results do not support the inclusion of fingolimod or interferon in the NLEM for the treatment of RRMS unless their prices are decreased or special schema arranged.

Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness of second-line antiepileptic drugs for status epilepticus

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (20) ◽  
pp. e2339-e2348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Sánchez Fernández ◽  
Marina Gaínza-Lein ◽  
Nathan Lamb ◽  
Tobias Loddenkemper
Keyword(s):  
Status Epilepticus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiepileptic Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Convulsive Status Epilepticus ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveCompare the cost and effectiveness of nonbenzodiazepine antiepileptic drugs (non-BZD AEDs) for treatment of BZD-resistant convulsive status epilepticus (SE).MethodsDecision analysis model populated with effectiveness data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and cost data from publicly available prices. The primary outcome was cost per seizure stopped ($/SS). Sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results across a wide variation of the input parameters.ResultsWe included 24 studies with 1,185 SE episodes. The most effective non-BZD AED was phenobarbital (PB) with a probability of SS of 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–0.88), followed by valproate (VPA) (0.71 [95% CI: 0.61–0.79]), lacosamide (0.66 [95% CI: 0.51–0.79]), levetiracetam (LEV) (0.62 [95% CI: 0.5–0.73]), and phenytoin/fosphenytoin (PHT) (0.53 [95% CI: 0.39–0.67]). In pairwise comparisons, PB was more effective than PHT (p = 0.002), VPA was more effective than PHT (p = 0.043), and PB was more effective than LEV (p = 0.018). The most cost-effective non-BZD AED was LEV (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: $18.55/SS), followed by VPA (ICER: $94.44/SS), and lastly PB (ICER: $847.22/SS). PHT and lacosamide were not cost-effective compared to the other options. Sensitivity analyses showed marked overlap in cost-effectiveness, but PHT was consistently less cost-effective than LEV, VPA, and PB.ConclusionVPA and PB were more effective than PHT for SE. There is substantial overlap in the cost-effectiveness of non-BZD AEDs for SE, but available evidence does not support the preeminence of PHT, neither in terms of effectiveness nor in terms of cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b infection in China

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035224
Author(s):  
Haoya Yun ◽  
Guoqiang Zhao ◽  
Xiaojie Sun ◽  
Lizheng Shi
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Direct Acting Antivirals ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) compared with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Chinese patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV).DesignA Markov model was developed to estimate the disease progression of patients with HCV over a lifetime horizon from the healthcare system perspective. Efficacy, clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the published literature. Drug costs were from the market price survey, and health costs for Markov health states were sourced from a Chinese study. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of input parameters on the results.InterventionsSOF/VEL was compared with sofosbuvir+ribavirin (SR), sofosbuvir+dasabuvir (SD), daclatasvir+asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) and elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR).Primary and secondary outcomesCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs).ResultsSOF/VEL was economically dominant over SR and SD. However, 3D was economically dominant compared with SOF/VEL. Compared with DCV/ASV, SOF/VEL was cost-effective with the ICUR of US$1522 per QALY. Compared with EBR/GZR, it was not cost-effective with the ICUR of US$369 627 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of SOF/VEL to the lower value of CI resulted in dominance over EBR/GZR and 3D. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 3D was cost-effective in 100% of iterations in patients with genotype (GT) 1b and SOF/VEL was not cost-effective.ConclusionsCompared with other oral DAA agents, SOF/VEL treatment was not the most cost-effectiveness option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b in China. Lower the price of SOF/VEL will make it cost-effective while simplifying treatment and achieving the goal of HCV elimination.

scholarly journals Cost-utility Analysis of Trabecular Micro-bypass Stents (TBS) in Patients With Mild-to-moderate Open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Maria Fea ◽  
Francesco Cattel ◽  
Stefano Gandolfi ◽  
Giorgio Buseghin ◽  
Gianluca Furneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Istent Inject ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8,368.51 vs. €7,134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness (CEAC) analysis showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective. Trial registration: Not applicable

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with colony-simulating factor (CSF) when compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma undergoing curative chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6558-6558
Author(s):  
K. K. Chan ◽  
K. R. Imrie ◽  
S. M. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

6558 Background: The 2006 ASCO guideline recommends PP with CSF for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, partially based on previous cost-minimization analyses showing that CSF saved costs when compared with no CSF by reducing hospitalization from febrile neutropenia (FN) when the risk of FN was > 20%. However, these studies examined only one cycle of chemotherapy and did not account for costs of CSF in subsequent cycles, did not consider SP, and did not consider patients’ preferences. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP with SP in this setting using a Markov model for a time horizon of 8 cycles of chemotherapy with a government payer perspective. Costs were adjusted to 2006 $CAD. Ontario health economic data were used. The cost of hospitalization for FN was obtained from Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Data for efficacies of CSF, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: The base case costs for PP and SP were $22,077 and $17,641. The QALYs of PP and SP were 0.254 and 0.248. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $739,999/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that in order for PP to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization per episode of FN had to be > $31,138 (i.e. 2.5 times > base case), the cost of CSF per cycle had to be < $896 (base case = $1,960), the risk of FN in the 1st cycle had to be > 48% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with CSF had to be > 97% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all other cost, probability and utility variables. First order microsimulation showed that < 17% of simulations were cost-effective. Conclusions: PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP for this population under most assumptions. PP only becomes attractive in places where the cost of hospitalization for FN is much more than that of Ontario, or the cost of CSF is under $896 per cycle. The costs of CSF and hospitalization in all cycles (instead of just one cycle) should be accounted for in any economic evaluation of CSF. Current guidelines recommending PP in this population should be revisited. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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-utility analysis of imrecoxib compared with diclofenac for patients with osteoarthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueshan Sun ◽  
Xuemei Zhen ◽  
Xiaoqian Hu ◽  
Yuanyuan Li ◽  
ShuYan Gu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Pump Inhibitor ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Medical Database ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background To estimate the cost -utility of imrecoxib compared with diclofenac, as well as the addition of a proton pump inhibitor to both two treatment strategies, for patients with osteoarthritis, from a Chinese healthcare perspective. Methods A Markov model was built. Costs of managing osteoarthritis and initial adverse events were collected from a Medical Database which collected information from 170 hospitals. Other parameters were obtained from the literature. Subgroup analyses were conducted for people at high risk of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular adverse events. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Imrecoxib was highly cost-effective than diclofenac (the ICER was $401.58 and $492.77 in patients at low and high gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk, respectively). The addition of a proton pump inhibitor was more cost -effective compared with single drug for both treatment strategies. Findings remained robust to sensitivity analyses. 59.04% and 57.16% probability for the co-prescription of imrecoxib and a proton pump inhibitor to be the most cost-effective strategy in all patients considered using the cost-effectiveness threshold of $30,000. Conclusions The addition of a proton pump inhibitor to both imrecoxib and diclofenac was advised. Imrecoxib provides a valuable option for patients with osteoarthritis. Uncertainties existed in the model, and the suggestions can be adopted with caution.

Cost-Utility Of Bortezomib In Induction Treatment Prior To Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation (ASCT) In Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients In Canada

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1735-1735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Kouroukis ◽  
Darrell White ◽  
Morgan Kruse ◽  
Donna Lawrence ◽  
Cristina Trambitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Health State ◽  
Health States ◽  
Induction Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Introduction The effectiveness of bortezomib for induction treatment prior to ASCT in multiple myeloma (MM) patients has been demonstrated in a number of randomized, open-label phase III trials, including the IFM 2005-01 trial (Harousseau et al., J Clin Oncol 2010;28(30):4621-9). This trial showed that the addition of bortezomib as part of an induction treatment prior to ASCT resulted in statistically significant improvements in post-induction response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared to a non-bortezomib containing regimen (NBCR). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of a bortezomib-containing regimen (BCR) vs. a NBCR for induction treatment in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT from a Canadian public payer perspective, based on the results of the IFM 2005-01 study. Methods A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-utility over a lifetime horizon (50 years) in previously untreated MM patients undergoing induction and ASCT. The model simulated disease progression of patients with previously untreated MM through three health states: “progression-free”, “progression” and “death”, with all patients beginning in the progression-free state. The PFS and overall survival (OS) curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial were extrapolated beyond the study follow-up period to estimate the timeframe spent in each health state. Each health state was associated with a utility value and direct medical costs. Utilities for the progression-free and progression health states were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis for bortezomib and were 0.81 and 0.645, respectively (Hornberger et al., Eur J Haematol 2010;85(6):484-91). Transition probabilities between health states were estimated by calibrating the model to the PFS and OS curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial. In the base case, transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period were conservatively assumed to be equal for both treatment groups. Medical resource utilization was estimated using the IFM 2005-01 trial, and supplemented by published literature and clinical advisors. Clinical advisors also provided input on management of adverse events (> grade 3) and treatment of patients who progressed after induction and ASCT. Resource costs were estimated using Canadian sources ($CAN 2012) and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Because patients in each group incurred similar costs (i.e. cost of an ASCT), only incremental costs between the two arms were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results The mean total MM-related cost over the lifetime analysis in the model was $68,800 per patient treated with a BCR and $47,000 per patient treated with a NBCR. Addition of bortezomib to the induction regimen increased costs by $21,700 (see table). Over the model lifetime, a delay in progression with a BCR led to 0.25 years of additional survival compared to a NBCR and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.22 years. The incremental cost-utility ratio for induction using a BCR compared to a NBCR approach was $99,200/QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the major factors impacting the cost-utility ratio as: transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period, discounting, utilities and bortezomib costs. The probability of a BCR being cost-effective compared to a NBCR was 43.9% at a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusions A number of phase 3 trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of bortezomib as part of an induction regimen prior to ASCT. This analysis indicates that, from a Canadian perspective, induction treatment with a BCR in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT can be cost-effective at conventional decision thresholds with a cost-utility ratio of $99,200/QALY. Disclosures: Kouroukis: Janssen Inc.: Honoraria. White:Janssen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kruse:OptumInsight: Employment. Lawrence:OptumInsight: Employment. Trambitas:Janssen Inc.: Employment.

scholarly journals A Trial-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 132
Author(s):  
Elise De Bleser ◽  
Ruben Willems ◽  
Karel Decaestecker ◽  
Lieven Annemans ◽  
Aurélie De Bruycker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health States ◽  
Government Documents ◽  
Markov Decision ◽  
The Cost

The optimal management of patients with oligorecurrent prostate cancer (PCa) is unknown. There is growing interest in metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) for this population. The objective was to assess cost-utility from a Belgian healthcare payer’s perspective of MDT and delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in comparison with surveillance and delayed ADT, and with immediate ADT. A Markov decision-analytic trial-based model was developed, projecting the results over a 5-year time horizon with one-month cycles. Clinical data were derived from the STOMP trial and literature. Treatment costs were derived from official government documents. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that MDT is cost-effective compared to surveillance (ICER: €8393/quality adjusted life year (QALY)) and immediate ADT (dominant strategy). The ICER is most sensitive to utilities in the different health states and the first month MDT cost. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €40,000 per QALY, the cost of the first month MDT should not exceed €8136 to be cost-effective compared to surveillance. The Markov-model suggests that MDT for oligorecurrent PCa is potentially cost-effective in comparison with surveillance and delayed ADT, and in comparison with immediate ADT.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon ◽  
Oraluck Pattanaprateep ◽  
Narisa Ruenroengbun ◽  
Tunlanut Sapankaew ◽  
Atiporn Ingsathit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Phosphate Binders ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Uncontrolled hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients commonly results in vascular calcification leading to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Phosphate binders (PBs) are used for hyperphosphatemia and can be calcium-based (CBPBs) or non-calcium-based (NCBPBs), the latter being more expensive than CBPBs. In this study, we used meta-analysis approaches to assess the cost-utility of PBs for hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients. Methods Relevant studies published prior to June 2019 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies were eligible if they included CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia, compared any PBs and reported economic outcomes. Meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) across studies stratified by country income. Results A total of 25 studies encompassing 32 comparisons were eligible. Lanthanum carbonate, a NCBPB, was a more cost-effective option than CBPBs in high-income countries (HICs), with a pooled INB of $3984.4 (599.5–7369.4), especially in pre-dialysis patients and used as a second-line option with INBs of $4860.2 (641.5–9078.8), $4011.0 (533.7–7488.3), respectively. Sevelamer, also a NCBPB, was not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs with a pooled INB of $6045.8 (− 23,453.0 to 35,522.6) and $34,168.9 (− 638.0 to 68,975.7) in HICs and upper middle-income countries, respectively. Conclusions Lanthanum carbonate was significantly more cost-effective than CBPBs as a second-line option for hyperphosphatemia in pre-dialysis patients in HICs. However, the use of sevelamer is not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document