scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Nutrient Supplementation in Cancer Survivors

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (24) ◽  
pp. 6276
Author(s):  
Amy L. Shaver ◽  
Theresa A. Tufuor ◽  
Jing Nie ◽  
Shauna Ekimura ◽  
Keri Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Hospitalization Rates ◽  
The Cost

Cancer patients are at risk for malnutrition; the aim of this study was to provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of dietary supplementation in cancer survivors. We estimated prevalence of supplementation, hospitalization rates, quality of life (QOL), cost of care and mortality among cancer survivors. We built a decision analytic model to simulate life-long costs of health care and supplementation and QOL among cancer survivors with and without supplementation. Cost of supplements was derived from national pharmacy databases including single- and multivitamin formularies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to changes in supplementation costs and duration. The study cohort represented the national cancer survivor population (average age 61 years, 85% white, 52% male, and 94% insured). Hospitalization rates for supplement users and non-users were 12% and 21%, respectively. The cost of hospitalization was $4030. Supplementation was associated with an additional 0.48 QALYs (10.26 vs. 9.78) at the incremental cost of $2094 ($236,933 vs. $234,839) over the remaining lifetime of survivors (on average 13 years). Adequate nutrition provides a cost-effective strategy to achieving potentially optimum health. Further studies are needed to determine the effects of specific nutrient doses and supplementation on long-term outcomes per cancer type.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara E. Gubler-Gut ◽  
Johannes Pöhlmann ◽  
Aline Flatz ◽  
Matthias Schwenkglenks ◽  
Sabine Rohrmann
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Physical Activity Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Purpose Physical activity has been shown to improve survival and quality of life of cancer patients. Due to differences in patient populations, healthcare settings, and types of intervention, cost-effectiveness analyses of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors are difficult to compare. Available evidence from breast cancer survivor research has shown inconsistent results, and transfer of results to other types of cancer is not straightforward. This paper systematically reviewed current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in cancer survivors independent of cancer type compared to usual care or another experimental intervention. Methods The literature search was conducted in seven databases and enhanced by a search for gray literature. Eligible studies were restricted to developed countries and assessed using the CHEERS, CHEC, and PHILIPS checklists. The study protocol was pre-published in PROSPERO. Results Seven studies, five cost-utility, and two combined cost-utility/cost-effectiveness analyses fully met the inclusion criteria. They covered eight different types of cancer and various interventions. The cost-effectiveness analyses were of moderate to high methodological quality. A high probability of cost-effectiveness was reported in two analyses. One intervention appeared to be not cost-effective, and one to be cost-effective only from an organizational perspective. Three other analyses reported a cost-effectiveness better than US$ 101,195 (€ 80,000) per QALY gained. Conclusions Physical activity interventions in cancer survivors of developed countries were cost-effective in some but not all clinical trials reviewed. Implications for Cancer Survivors Cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions appear to depend upon the intensity of the activity.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy for cluster B personality disorders

2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djøra I. Soeteman ◽  
Roel Verheul ◽  
Jos Delimon ◽  
Anke M. M. A. Meerman ◽  
Ellen van den Eijnden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Day Hospital ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Cluster B Personality Disorders ◽  
Effective Choice ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundRecommendations on current clinical guidelines are informed by limited economic evidence.AimsA formal economic evaluation of three modalities of psychotherapy for patients with cluster B personality disorders.MethodA probabilistic decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of out-patient, day hospital and in-patient psychotherapy over 5 years in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Analyses were conducted from both societal and payer perspectives.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the most cost-effective choice switched from out-patient to day hospital psychotherapy at a threshold of €12 274 per recovered patient-year; and from day hospital to in-patient psychotherapy at €113 298. In terms of cost per QALY, the optimal strategy changed at €56 325 and €286 493 per QALY respectively. From the payer perspective, the switch points were at €9895 and €155 797 per recovered patient-year, and €43 427 and €561 188 per QALY.ConclusionsOut-patient psychotherapy and day hospital psychotherapy are the optimal treatments for patients with cluster B personality disorders in terms of cost per recovered patient-year and cost per QALY.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Peer-Delivered HIV Self-Tests for MSM in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Okoboi ◽  
Barbara Castelnuovo ◽  
Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden ◽  
Oucul Lazarus ◽  
Lung Vu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Hiv Infections ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Self Testing ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Distribution of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits through MSM peer networks is a novel and effective strategy to increase HIV testing coverage in this high-risk population. No study has evaluated the cost or cost effectiveness of peer distribution of HIVST strategies among MSM in sub-Saharan Africa.Methods: From June to August 2018, we conducted a pilot study of secondary MSM peer HIVST kit distribution at The AIDS Support Organization at Entebbe and Masaka. We used an ingredients approach to estimate the cost of MSM peer HIVST kit distribution relative to standard-of-care (SOC) hotspot testing using programme expenditure data reported in US dollars. The provider perspective was used to estimate incremental cost-effective ratios per HIV infection averted using the difference in HIV annual transmission rates between MSM with HIV who knew their status and were not virologically suppressed and MSM with HIV who did not know their status.Results: We enrolled 297 participants of whom 150 received MSM peer HIVST kit distribution (intervention group) and 147 received TASO standard of care HIV testing (control group). Provider cost for the intervention was $2,276 compared with $1,827 for SOC during the 3-month study period. Overall, the intervention resulted in higher HIV positivity yield (4.9 vs. 1.4%) and averted more HIV infections per quarter (0.364 vs. 0.104) compared with SOC. The cost per person tested was higher for the intervention compared to SOC ($15.90 vs. $12.40). Importantly, the cost per new HIV diagnosis ($325 vs. $914) and cost per transmission averted ($6,253 vs. $ 17,567) were lower for the intervention approach relative to SOC. The incremental cost per HIV transmission averted by the self-testing program was $1,727. The incremental cost to providers per additional HIV-positive person identified by the intervention was $147.30.Conclusion: The intervention strategy was cost-effective, and identified more undiagnosed HIV infections than SOC hotspot testing at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US $2,129. Secondary distribution of HIVST kits through peers should further be evaluated with longer duration aimed at diagnosing 95% of all persons with HIV by 2030; the first UNAIDS 95-95-95 target.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Bariatric Surgery for Morbidly Obese with Diabetes Patients in Thailand

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ithiphon Viratanapanu ◽  
Chavalit Romyen ◽  
Komol Chaivanijchaya ◽  
Sikarin Sornphiphatphong ◽  
Worawit Kattipatanapong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Diabetes Control ◽  
Effectiveness Evaluation ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Dm Type 2

Background. Bariatric surgery is a choice for treatment in morbidly obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM type 2) who have inadequate diabetes control with only medical treatment. However, bariatric surgery requires highly sophisticated equipment, and thus the cost of surgery seems to be very high following the procedure compared with the cost of conventional diabetes care. This raises the question of whether bariatric surgery is cost-effective for morbidly obese people with diabetes in Thailand. Objective. To perform a cost-effectiveness evaluation of bariatric surgery compared with ordinary treatment for diabetes control in morbidly obese DM type 2 patients in Thailand. Methods. Cost-effectiveness study was conducted, using a combination of decision tree and Markov model in analysis. Treatment outcomes and healthcare costs were incurred by data from literature review and retrospective cohort in King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital from September 2009 to March 2016 for the conventional and bariatric surgery group, respectively. One-way sensitivity was used for analysis of the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Monetary benefits at a threshold of 150,000 to 200,000 Thai baht (THB) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on the Thailand gross domestic products (GDP) value was regarded as cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery. Results. Bariatric surgery significantly improves the clinical outcome including long-term diabetes remission rate, hemoglobin A1C, and body mass index (BMI). The incremental cost per QALY of bariatric surgery compared with the medication control is 26,907.76 THB/QALY which can consider bariatric surgery as a cost-effective option. Conclusions. Use of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese with DM type 2 patients is a cost-effective strategy in Thailand’s context.

Cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders in Singapore

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-398
Author(s):  
Monica Teng ◽  
Hui Jun Zhou ◽  
Liang Lin ◽  
Pang Hung Lim ◽  
Doreen Yeo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. Methods A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. Results Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. Conclusions Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.

scholarly journals An Economic Evaluation of a Comprehensive School-Based Caries Prevention Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.S. Huang ◽  
R.R. Ruff ◽  
R. Niederman
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Caries Prevention ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
School Based ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Current economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs (SCPPs) do not compare multiple types of SCPPs against each other and do not consider teeth beyond permanent first molars. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive SCPP relative to an SCPP focused on delivering sealants for permanent first molars only and to a default of no SCPP. Based on a societal perspective, a simulation model was used that compared the health and cost impacts on 1) permanent first molars only and 2) all posterior teeth. Methods: To calibrate the model, we used data from CariedAway, a comprehensive SCPP that used glass ionomer to prevent and arrest active decay among children. We then evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing 3 alternate school-based approaches (comprehensive, sealant only, and no program) on only first molars and all posterior teeth. Probabilistic, 1-, and 2-way sensitivity analyses are included for robustness. Cost-effectiveness is assessed with a threshold of $54,639 per averted disability-adjusted life year (DALY). Results: We first compared the 3 programs under the assumption of treating only first molars. This assessment indicated that CariedAway was less cost-effective than school-based sealant programs (SSPs): the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CariedAway versus SSPs was $283,455 per averted DALY. However, when the model was extended to include CariedAway’s treatment of all posterior teeth, CariedAway was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving relative to SSPs (ICER, –$943,460.88 per averted DALY; net cost, –$261.45) and no SCPP (ICER, –$400,645.52 per averted DALY; net cost, –$239.77). Conclusions: This study finds that economic evaluations assessing only cost and health impacts on permanent first molars may underestimate the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive SCPPs 1) preventing and arresting decay and 2) treating all teeth. Hence, there is an urgent need for economic evaluations of SCPPs to assess cost and health impacts across teeth beyond only permanent first molars. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The results of this study can be used by policy makers to understand how to evaluate economic evaluations of school-based caries prevention programs and what factors to consider when deciding on what types of programs to implement.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of combining traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of hypertension: compound Apocynum tablets combined with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets vs Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Xu ◽  
Nan Yang ◽  
Shuang Feng ◽  
Jianfei Guo ◽  
Qi-bing Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Sustained Release ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicines ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Chinese Medicines ◽  
Sustained Release Tablets ◽  
Treatment Of Hypertension ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background We evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) and to compare the cost-effectiveness of a combined treatment consisting of compound Apocynum tablets and Nifedipine sustained-release tablets with the cost-effectiveness of treatment with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone. Methods A Markov model was used to simulate the potential incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to be gained from compound Apocynum tablets and Nifedipine sustained-release tablets compared with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone. Model parameter estimates were informed by previously published studies. The direct medical costs of outpatients with hypertension were estimated from the health care provider’s perspective. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and QALYs. Results TCMs combined with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets group generated a total 20-year cost of 11,517.94 RMB (US $1739.87), whereas Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone group resulted in a 20-year cost of 7253.71 RMB (US $1095.73). TCMs combined with Nifedipine sustained-release tablets group resulted in a generation of 12.69 QALYs, whereas Nifedipine sustained-release tablets alone group resulted in 12.50. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 22,443.32 RMB (US $3390.23) per QALY. Considering the threshold of 1 GDP per capita in China in 2018 (US $9764.95), the combination of compound Apocynum tablets and Nifedipine sustained-release tablets was a cost-effective strategy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed unchanged results over an acceptable range. Conclusions Combining Traditional Chinese Medicines with chemical medicines is more cost-effective strategy in the treatment of hypertension.

Societal and Economic Effect of Meniscus Scaffold Procedures for Irreparable Meniscus Injuries

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 1724-1734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan J. Rongen ◽  
Tim M. Govers ◽  
Pieter Buma ◽  
Janneke P.C. Grutters ◽  
Gerjon Hannink
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Medial Meniscus ◽  
Relative Risk Reduction ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Meniscus Scaffolds

Background: Meniscus scaffolds are currently evaluated clinically for their efficacy in preventing the development of osteoarthritis as well as for their efficacy in treating patients with chronic symptoms. Procedural costs, therapeutic consequences, clinical efficacy, and future events should all be considered to maximize the monetary value of this intervention. Purpose: To examine the socioeconomic effect of treating patients with irreparable medial meniscus injuries with a meniscus scaffold. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Two Markov simulation models for patients with an irreparable medial meniscus injury were developed. Model 1 was used to investigate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by the possibility of preventing the development of osteoarthritis. Model 2 was used to investigate the short-term (5-year) cost-effectiveness of a meniscus scaffold compared with standard partial meniscectomy by alleviating clinical symptoms, specifically in chronic patients with previous meniscus surgery. For both models, probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations were applied. Treatment effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while costs (estimated in euros) were assessed from a societal perspective. We assumed €20,000 as a reference value for the willingness to pay per QALY. Next, comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds. Results: Model 1 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €54,463 per QALY (€5991/0.112). A threshold analysis demonstrated that a meniscus scaffold should offer a relative risk reduction of at least 0.34 to become cost-effective, assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000. Decreasing the costs of the meniscus scaffold procedure by 33% (€10,160 instead of €15,233; an absolute change of €5073) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7876 per QALY. Model 2 demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a meniscus scaffold treatment of €297,727 per QALY (€9825/0.033). On the basis of the current efficacy data, a meniscus scaffold provides a relative risk reduction of “limited benefit” postoperatively of 0.37 compared with standard treatment. A threshold analysis revealed that assuming a willingness to pay of €20,000, a meniscus scaffold would not be cost-effective within a period of 5 years. Most influential variables on the cost-effectiveness of meniscus scaffolds were the cost of the scaffold procedure, cost associated with osteoarthritis, and quality of life before and after the scaffold procedure. Conclusion: Results of the current health technology assessment emphasize that the monetary value of meniscus scaffold procedures is very much dependent on a number of influential variables. Therefore, before implementing the technology in the health care system, it is important to critically assess these variables in a relevant context. The models can be improved as additional clinical data regarding the efficacy of the meniscus scaffold become available.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of hydrogel spacer in radiotherapy (RT) of prostate cancer (PC).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 43-43
Author(s):  
Rahul Ramesh Khairnar ◽  
Joseph Levy ◽  
Mark Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Incremental Effectiveness ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Fee Schedule

43 Background: A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is an FDA-approved medical device used to increase the separation between the rectum and the prostate. A recent phase III trial demonstrated a small reduction in the incidence of RT toxicities associated with use of HRS. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use in PC patients undergoing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Methods: A multi-state Markov model was constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving IMRT in the US (arms: IMRT alone vs. IMRT + HRS). Subgroups included delivery site of IMRT (hospital vs. ambulatory) and baseline sexual function (SF) (general population vs. those with good SF). Based on previous studies, recurrence and survival were assumed equal for both arms. Data on SF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, as well as potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and 2018 Physician Fee Schedule. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and value-based threshold analysis were conducted. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Results: The per-person 5-year incremental cost for HRS administered in a hospital was $4,008 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0273 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $146,746 (95% credible interval from PSA $125,638 – $178,049) for PC patients undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital vs. $73,359 ($66,732 – $86,767) for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good SF, the ICER was $55,153 ($46,002 – $76,090) and $26,542 ($17,399 – $46,044) in hospital vs. ambulatory facility. Conclusions: This study is the first to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRS based on long-term toxicity data. Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective in men with good SF at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 and it is marginally cost-effective for the entire population depending on the facility where the HRS is inserted.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ALEMTUZUMAB FOR T-CELL PROLYMPHOCYTIC LEUKEMIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lanting Lu ◽  
Jaime Peters ◽  
Chris Roome ◽  
Ken Stein
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Perfect Information ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Prolymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab (CAMPATH-1H) compared with conventional chemotherapy in people with T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (T-PLL).Methods:We developed a decision-analytic model to assess the costs and benefits of alemtuzumab or conventional therapy based on their effects on quality of life of patients. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio incorporating costs per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over lifetime. Due to the limited data available, a large number of assumptions had to be made to construct the cost-utility model. One-way, multi-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the impact of these uncertainties. Expected values of perfect information were also calculated for four specific scenarios.Results:Depending on different key assumptions made, the PSA suggested distinct conclusions using a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 GBP per QALY gained. Using this threshold, the probability that alemtuzumab would be cost-effective varies from 0 percent to 53 percent for the four modeled scenarios. Population expected value of perfect information analysis suggests that resolving the parameter uncertainty in the analysis for people with T-PLL in the United Kingdom would have considerable value—up to 5.3 million euro.Conclusions:Alemtuzumab appears more likely to be cost-effective if used earlier in the course of T-PLL and where it replaces the use of multiple alternative therapies. However, cost-effectiveness is highly uncertain and future research is clearly justified. Nevertheless, our analysis demonstrates the feasibility of considering the cost-effectiveness of an agent despite the presence of significant uncertainty to provide appropriate assessment information to policy makers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document