scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Venous Thromboembolism in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke-Xin Sun ◽  
Bin Cui ◽  
Shan-Shan Cao ◽  
Qi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Ru-Yi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed.Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used.Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (−187017.543, −284,674.922, and −9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (−216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV.Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Proton Beam Therapy for Treatment Decision Making in Paranasal Sinus and Nasal Cavity Cancers in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guo Li ◽  
Bo Qiu ◽  
Yi-Xiang Huang ◽  
Jerome Doyen ◽  
Pierre-Yves Bondiau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nasal Cavity ◽  
Paranasal Sinus ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Cost-effectiveness is a pivotal consideration for clinical decision making of advanced cancer treatment in developing countries. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT) has been found to improve the prognosis of the patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers compared with intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT). However, the cost-effectiveness of IMPT has not yet been fully evaluated. This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for treatment decision making of paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in Chinese settings.Methods:A 3-state Markov modelwas designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. A base case evaluation was performed on a patient of 47-year-old (median age of patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China). Model robustness was examined by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Markov cohort analysis and Tornado diagram. Cost-effective scenarios of IMPT were further identified by one-way sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were performed for different age levels. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was defined as cost-effective if the ICER was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China (30,828 US dollars ($) / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)).Results: IMPT was identified as being cost-effective for the base case at the WTP of China, providing an extra 1.65 QALYs at an additional cost of $38,928.7 compared with IMRT, and had an ICER of $23,611.2 / QALY. Of note, cost-effective scenarios of IMPT only existed in the following independent conditions: probability of IMPT eradicating cancer ≥ 0.867; probability of IMRT eradicating cancer ≤ 0.764; or cost of IMPT ≤ $52,163.9. Stratified analyses for different age levels demonstrated that IMPT was more cost-effective in younger patients than older patients, and was cost-effective only in patients ≤ 56-year-old.Conclusions: Despite initially regarded as bearing high treatment cost, IMPT could still be cost-effective for patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. The tumor control superiority of IMPT over IMRT and the patient’s age should be the principal considerations for clinical decision of prescribing this new irradiation technique.

Principles of Cost-Effective Resource Allocation in Health Care organizations

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milton C. Weinstein
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Organizations ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Common Understanding ◽  
Analytical Errors

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a method of economic evaluation that can be used to assess the efficiency with which health care technologies use limited resources to produce health outputs. However, inconsistencies in the way that such ratios are constructed often lead to misleading conclusions when CEAs are compared. Some of these inconsistencies, such as failure to discount or to calculate incremental ratios correctly, reflect analytical errors that, if corrected, would resolve the inconsistencies. Others reflect fundamental differences in the viewpoint of the analysis. The perspectives of different decision-making entities can properly lead to different items in the numerator and denominator of the cost-effectiveness (C/E) ratio. Producers and consumers of CEA need to be more conscious of the perspectives of analysis, so that C/E comparisons from a given perspective are based upon a common understanding of the elements that are properly included.

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 Analysis of Fecal Transplant Delivery Methods for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infections in Outpatients

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S386-S386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremey Walker ◽  
Nathan Gundacker ◽  
Martin Rodriguez ◽  
Ellen Eaton
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clostridium Difficile ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cure Rates

Abstract Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) accounts for more than $1 billion annually in US health care costs. Recurrent CDI (RCDI, recurrence within 8 weeks of initial treatment) contributes substantially to this cost. The objective of the study was to compare the cost effectiveness of FMT delivered via colonoscopy vs. blind nasogastric tube (NGT) in outpatients. We hypothesized that FMT by NGT would be cost-effective given its low risk and simplicity. Methods A decision-analytic simulation model compared the cost effectiveness of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT from a third-party payer perspective. Our base case cure rates were derived from a cohort receiving outpatient RCDI treatment at our institution. Cure was defined as resolution of symptoms for ≥ 90 days. Procedural cost and consultation was defined by average reimbursement to a large southeastern medical center in 2016 USD based on current procedural terminology (CPT) codes, and cost of disease states were derived from published literature. Health utilities were defined by quality of life year (QALY) based on published literature. Incremental Cost Effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the cost per additional QALY gained. We assumed a 90 day time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed on all variables using ranges defined by published literature. We used TreeAge Software (Williamstown, MA). Results In the base case, FMT by colonoscopy was dominant (more effective and less costly) than NGT, with cost of $1,568/QALY vs. $1,910/QALY respectively. Cure rates of FMT by colonoscopy vs. NGT (100% vs. 87%) had the largest impact on ICER based on one-way sensitivity analysis. Therefore, a subsequent two-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to compare cure rates of both delivery methods and found that NGT delivery is cost effective as cure rates approach colonoscopy delivery cure rates within 5 percentage points. Conclusion Contrary to our hypothesis, our decision model supports FMT by colonoscopy as the preferred delivery method in outpatients with RCDI relative to NGT delivery. Additional costs of colonoscopy delivery are off-set by the improved cure rate leading to lower overall costs. As cure rates from NGT delivery are optimized, NGT may become the preferred method for FMT delivery. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Cost-effective clinical decision making

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
pp. 756-759
Author(s):  
Duncan Neuhauser
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Inappropriate Therapy ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Scarce Resources ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
The Cost

Are pediatric preoperative chest x-ray examinations worth doing? Sane et al. (p. 669) conclude that they are "medically and economically justified and essential." To answer this question requires at least the following information. What is the cost of the examination (dollars, radiation exposure, cost of further testing and perhaps inappropriate therapy resulting therefrom, and possible prolongation of hospital stay)? What is the benefit? What percent of patients have unsuspected findings; of these, the percent with modified treatment; and of these, what percent benefited therefrom? What was the cost per unit of benefit received? Is there some other use of these scarce resources that would have yielded greater benefits?

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Daratumumab to Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Multiple Myeloma

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaohua Cao ◽  
Lina Zhao ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Weiling Cao
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients.Methods: A three-state Markov model was developed from the perspective of US payers to simulate the disease development of patient’s life time for daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) regimens. The primary outputs were total costs, expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results: The base case results showed that adding daratumumab to VMP provided an additional 3.00 Lys or 2.03 QALYs, at a cost of $262,526 per LY or $388,364 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were most sensitive to utility of progression disease of D-VMP regimens, but no matter how these parameters changed, ICERs remained higher than $150,000 per QALY.Conclusion: In the case that the upper limit of willingness to pay threshold was $150,000 per QALY from the perspective of US payers, D-VMP was not a cost-effective regimen compared to VMP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document