scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analyses on Various Models of The Red Light, Purple Light Self-Regulation Intervention for Young Children

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Li ◽  
Megan M. McClelland ◽  
Shauna L. Tominey ◽  
Alexis Tracy
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Red Light ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Train The Trainer ◽  
Trained Teachers

Early childhood interventions can improve self-regulation, but there are few economic evaluations of such interventions. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of an early childhood self-regulation intervention (Red Light Purple Light!; RLPL), comparing three different models of implementation across stages of intervention development: (Model 1) trained research assistants (RAs; graduate students) directly delivered the RLPL intervention to children; (Model 2) RAs trained trainers (e.g., program coaches), who then trained teachers to implement RLPL with children (e.g., train-the-trainer); and (Model 3) program faculty trained teachers to deliver the RLPL intervention to children. We implemented a cost-effectiveness analysis by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We also conducted a series of sensitivity analyses to adjust for parameter uncertainty. Our base-case analysis suggests that Model 2 was the most cost-effective strategy, in that a cost of $23 per child was associated with a one-unit increase of effect size on self-regulation scores. The “train-the-trainer” model remained the optimal strategy across scenarios in our sensitivity analysis. This study fills an important gap in cost-effectiveness analyses on early childhood self-regulation interventions. Our process and results can serve as a model for future cost-effectiveness analyses of early childhood intervention programs and may ultimately inform decisions related to intervention adoption that optimize resource allocation and improve program design.

scholarly journals Adjusting for Drug Wastage in Economic Evaluations of New Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e369-e379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Lien ◽  
Matthew C. Cheung ◽  
Kelvin K.W. Chan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Drug Wastage ◽  
Acquisition Costs ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: As costs of cancer care rise, there has been a shift to focus on value. Drug wastage affects costs to patients and health care systems without adding value. Historically, cost-effectiveness analyses have used models that assume no drug wastage; however, this may not reflect real-world practices. We sought to identify the frequency of drug wastage modeling in economic evaluations of modern parenteral therapies for hematologic malignancies. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of new US Food and Drug Administration–approved parenteral chemotherapies with indications for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of studies that modeled drug wastage in base-case analyses. If wastage was considered in primary analyses, we reported the impact of wastage on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and drug acquisition costs. Results: Wastage was considered in base-case analyses in less than one third of all publications reviewed (12 of 38; 32%). Of these, two studies went on to complete sensitivity analyses and reported significant changes in the calculated ICER as a result. In one study, the ICER increased by 32%, and in the second, accounting for wastage changed a positive ICER to a dominant result. Conclusion: Potential costs associated with drug wastage are considered in only one third of modern cost-effectiveness models. The impact of wastage on calculated ICERs and drug acquisition costs is potentially substantial. The modeling of wastage in base-case and sensitivity analyses is recommended for future economic evaluations of new intravenous therapies for hematologic malignancies.

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) versus tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TafaL) in ASCT-transplant ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): Economic evaluation including novel metrics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19535-e19535
Author(s):  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

scholarly journals 286. Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Are Daptomycin and Linezolid Favored over Vancomycin and Other Antibiotics?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S143-S144
Author(s):  
Michelle Vu ◽  
Kenneth Smith ◽  
Sherrie L Aspinall ◽  
Cornelius J Clancy ◽  
Deanna Buehrle
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Drug Event ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Methicillin Resistant

Abstract Background Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (MRSAB) cause significant mortality and often require extended antibiotic therapy. Vancomycin, the most common initial MRSAB treatment, carries significant monitoring burden and nephrotoxicity risks. We compared cost-effectiveness of vancomycin and other antibiotic regimens as MRSAB treatment. Methods We estimated cost-effectiveness of intravenous antibiotics (vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, ceftaroline/daptomycin, dalbavancin) for Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with MRSAB using an exploratory decision-tree model. Primary effectiveness outcome was composite of microbiological failure and adverse drug event (ADE)-related discontinuation at 7-days. Results In base-case analyses, linezolid and daptomycin were less expensive and had fewer treatment failures than other regimens at 4 and 6-weeks. Compared to linezolid, daptomycin incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were ~$45,000 (4-weeks) and ~$61,000 (6-weeks) per composite failure avoided, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analyses, daptomycin (4-weeks) was favored over linezolid if linezolid microbiological failure or ADE-related discontinuation rates were >14.8% (base case: 14.0%) or >14.3% (base case: 14.0%), respectively, assuming a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $40,000/ composite treatment failure avoided. Vancomycin was favored if its microbiological failure risk was < 16.4% (base case: 27.2%). In two-way sensitivity analyses, daptomycin was favored if linezolid microbiological failure and ADE-related discontinuation rates were >19% and > 16%, respectively. Linezolid, daptomycin and vancomycin were favored in 47%, 39%, and 11% of 4-week probabilistic iterations, respectively, at $40,000 WTP. Conclusion Daptomycin or linezolid are likely less expensive and more effective than vancomycin or other initial regimens for MRSAB. More data are needed to support safety of linezolid in MRSAB patients. Disclosures Cornelius J. Clancy, MD, Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Melinta (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Needham Associates (Consultant)Qpex (Consultant)Scynexis (Consultant)Shionogi (Consultant)

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of ranibizumab for retinal vein occlusion patients in China from the societal perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weiyi Ni ◽  
Jia Liu ◽  
Yawen Jiang ◽  
Jing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Retinal Vein Occlusion ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Laser Photocoagulation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Gdp Per Capita ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Vein Occlusion ◽  
Per Capita

Abstract Background Clinical trials in China have demonstrated that ranibizumab can improve the clinical outcomes of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). However, no economic evaluation of ranibizumab has been conducted among Chinese patient population. Methods To provide insights into the economic profile of ranibizumab among Chinese RVO population, a Markov state-transition model was used to predict the outcomes of ranibizumab comparing to laser photocoagulation and observational-only care from the societal perspective. This model simulated changes in patient visuality, quality-adjusted of life years (QALY), medical costs, and direct non-medical costs of individuals with visual impairment due to BRVO or CRVO in lifetime. The base-case analysis used an annual discount rate of 5% for costs and benefits following the China Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing ranibizumab to laser photocoagulation was ¥65,008/QALY among BRVO patients and was ¥65,815/QALY among CRVO patients, respectively. Comparing to the 2019 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of ¥71,000, both two ICERs were far below the cost-effective threshold at three times of GDP per capita (¥213,000). The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the base-case results were robust in most of the simulation scenarios. Conclusion The current Markov model demonstrated that ranibizumab may be cost-effective compared with laser photocoagulation to treat BRVO and cost-effective compared to observation-only care to treat CRVO in China from the societal perspective.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Telaprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Patients in Germany

10.36469/9870 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jona T. Stahmeyer ◽  
Svenja Schauer ◽  
Siegbert Rossol ◽  
Hans Heinrich Wedemeyer ◽  
Daniel Wirth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost

Background: About 400,000-500,000 people are infected with hepatitis C in Germany. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The introduction of first generation protease inhibitors has significantly improved the treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir in Germany. Methods: We used a Markov model on disease progression and natural history to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir compared to standard treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Model structure and inputs were discussed with clinical experts. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of results. Results: The base-case analyses shows that triple therapy results in higher costs (untreated patients: €48,446 vs. €30,691; previously treated patients: €63,228 vs. €48,603) and better outcomes (untreated patients: 16.85 qualily of life years [QALYs] vs. 15.97 QALYs; previously treated patients: 14.16 QALYs vs. 12.89 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €20,131 per QALY and €30,567 per life year gained (LYG) for previously untreated patients. ICER in treatment experienced patients was €7,664 per QALY for relapse patients, €12,506 per QALY for partial responders and €28,429 per QALY for null responders. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Although triple therapy with telaprevir leads to additional costs, there is a high probability of being cost-effective for different thresholds. This health economic analysis makes an important contribution to current debates on cost savings and efficient resource allocation in the German healthcare sector.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of mobile health-based integrated care for atrial fibrillation: Model development and data analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueyan Luo ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Quan Yuan ◽  
Han Lai ◽  
Chunji Huang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mhealth Technology

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mhealth) technology is increasingly used in disease management. Using mhealth tools to integrate and streamline care was found to improve atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical and health economic outcomes of mhealth-based integrated care for AF from the perspective of a public healthcare provider in China. METHODS A Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of mhealth-based care and usual care in a hypothetical cohort of AF patients in China. The time horizon was 30 years with monthly cycles. Model outcomes measured were direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, mhealth-based care gained higher QALYs of 0.0818 with an incurred cost of USD1,778. Using USD33,438 per QALY (three times gross domestic product) as the willingness-to-pay threshold, mhealth-based care was cost-effective, with an ICER of USD21,739 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis found compliance to mhealth-based care had the greatest impact on the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mhealth-based care was accepted as cost-effective in 80.91% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS This study suggested that the use of mhealth technology in streamlining and integrating care for AF patients was cost-effective in China.

scholarly journals Milk Powder Fortified with Potassium and Phytosterols to Decrease the Risk of Cardiovascular Events among the Adult Population in Malaysia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1235
Author(s):  
Anita E. Gandola ◽  
Livia Dainelli ◽  
Diane Zimmermann ◽  
Maznah Dahlui ◽  
Patrick Detzel
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Milk Powder ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Discounted Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Impact

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the consumption of a milk powder product fortified with potassium (+1050.28 mg/day) and phytosterols (+1200 mg/day) to lower systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively, and, therefore, the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke among the 35–75-year-old population in Malaysia. A Markov model was created against a do-nothing option, from a governmental perspective, and with a time horizon of 40 years. Different data sources, encompassing clinical studies, practice guidelines, grey literature, and statistical yearbooks, were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base case estimates. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio equal to international dollars (int$) 22,518.03 per quality-adjusted life-years gained, the intervention can be classified as very cost-effective. If adopted nationwide, it would help prevent at least 13,400 MIs, 30,500 strokes, and more than 10,600 and 17,100 MI- and stroke-related deaths. The discounted cost savings generated for the health care system by those who consume the fortified milk powder would amount to int$8.1 per person, corresponding to 0.7% of the total yearly health expenditure per capita. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Together with other preventive interventions, the consumption of milk powder fortified with potassium and phytosterols represents a cost-effective strategy to attenuate the rapid increase in cardiovascular burden in Malaysia.

scholarly journals Measles CEA

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S64-S65
Author(s):  
Emily Hyle
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
International Travel ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Most measles importations are due to returning US travelers infected during international travel. We projected clinical outcomes and assessed cost-effectiveness of pretravel evaluation for measles immunity and MMR vaccination among eligible adult US international travelers. Methods We designed a decision tree to investigate pretravel evaluation compared with no evaluation from the societal perspective. Data from the Global TravEpiNet Consortium and published literature informed input parameters (Figure 1). Outcomes included measles cases averted per 10 million travelers, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, Δcosts/Δmeasles cases averted); we considered ICERs &lt; $100,000/measles case averted to be cost-effective. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of varying the probability of exposure based on travel destination, and the percentage of travelers with pre-existing measles immunity. Results In the base case, departure after pretravel evaluation resulted in 16 measles importations and 46 transmissions per 10 million travelers and cost $132 million, vs without pretravel evaluation (26 importations and 87 transmissions per 10 million travelers, costing $22 million). Pretravel evaluation averted 51 measles cases per 10 million travelers with an ICER of $2.2 million per case averted. Results were most sensitive to the probability of measles exposure and the traveler’s pre-existing immunity (Figure 2). Pretravel evaluation was cost-effective for travelers to Asia if pre-existing measles immunity was &lt;80%. Evaluation was always cost-effective for travelers to Africa when pre-existing immunity was less than 100% and became cost saving when the percentage of immune travelers was lower (&lt;70%). Travelers who were more likely to be non-immune and were visiting destinations with higher probabilities of exposure were most likely to benefit from pretravel evaluation for measles immunity at excellent economic value. Conclusion As risk of measles exposure increases and likelihood of travelers’ pre-existing immunity decreases, it can be cost-effective or cost saving to assess US international travelers’ measles immunity status and vaccinate with MMR prior to departure. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document