scholarly journals Cost and Cost Effectiveness of a Pilot m-Health Intervention Targeting Parents of School-Aged Children to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Foods Packs in the Lunchbox

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 4136
Author(s):  
Alison Brown ◽  
Rachel Sutherland ◽  
Penny Reeves ◽  
Nicole Nathan ◽  
Luke Wolfenden
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Nutritional Quality ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
School Nutrition ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Cost

The SWAP IT program aims to improve the nutritional quality of school lunchboxes via a multicomponent m-health intervention, involving: weekly support messages to parents; physical resources; school nutrition guidelines and lunchbox lessons. SWAP IT has been reported to be effective. This study aims to determine the cost and cost effectiveness of the SWAP IT m-health intervention. The retrospective trial-based economic evaluation was conducted in 12 Catholic primary schools in New South Wales, Australia. Schools were randomised to intervention or usual care. The costs (AUD, 2019) were evaluated from societal perspectives. The direct cost to uptake the intervention and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. ICERS were calculated for two outcomes: reduction in total kJ and reduction in discretionary kJ from the lunchbox. The total cost was calculated to be AUD 55, 467. The mean incremental cost per student to receive the intervention was calculated to be AUD 31/student. The cost per reduction in total lunchbox energy was AUD 0.54. The ICER for the reduction in energy from discretionary foods in the lunchbox was AUD 0.24. These findings suggest that this m-health intervention has potential to be cost effective in reducing the kilojoules from discretionary foods packed in school lunchboxes.

Economic evaluation of drug-eluting stents: A systematic literature review and model-based cost–utility analysis

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Kuukasjärvi ◽  
Pirjo Räsänen ◽  
Antti Malmivaara ◽  
Pasi Aronen ◽  
Harri Sintonen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Drug Eluting Stents ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:The aim of this study was to systematically review economic analyses comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to form an overall view about cost-effectiveness of DES and to construct a simple decision analysis model to evaluate the cost–utility of DES.Methods:Electronic databases searched from January 2004 to January 2006 were Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; DARE, HTA, EED (NHS CRD); MEDLINE(R) In-Process, Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R). References of the papers identified were checked. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) or model-based cost-effectiveness analyses comparing DES to BMS in patients with coronary artery disease. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed by Drummond's criteria. Baseline characteristics and results of the studies were extracted and data synthesized descriptively. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost–utility of DES in comparison to BMS, where health-related quality of life was measured by the 15D.Results:We identified thirteen good-quality economic evaluations. In two of these based on RCTs, DES was found cost-effective. In six studies, it was concluded that DES might probably be a cost-effective strategy in some circumstances, but not as a single strategy, and four studies concluded that DES is not cost-effective. One study did not draw a clear conclusion. In our analysis, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €98,827 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Avoiding one revascularization with DES would cost €4,794, when revascularization with BMS costs €3,260.Conclusions:The evidence is inconsistent of whether DES would be a cost-effective treatment compared with BMS in any healthcare system where evaluated. A marked restenosis risk reduction should be achieved before use of DES is justifiable at present prices. When considering adoption of a new health technology with a high incremental cost within a fixed budget, opportunity cost in terms of untreated patients should be seriously considered as a question of collective ethics.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 821
Author(s):  
Sarah J Ronaldson ◽  
Ada Keding ◽  
Puvan Tharmanathan ◽  
Catherine Arundel ◽  
Sarah R Kingsbury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Hand Osteoarthritis ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Cost

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost–utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (−£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) −£15.60 to −£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (−0.0052; 95% CI −0.0057 to −0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

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.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of the Good School Toolkit: an intervention for reducing violence in primary schools in Uganda

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e000526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Greco ◽  
Louise Knight ◽  
Willington Ssekadde ◽  
Sophie Namy ◽  
Dipak Naker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Good School ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionThis paper presents the cost and cost-effectiveness of the Good School Toolkit (GST), a programme aimed at reducing physical violence perpetrated by school staff to students in Uganda.MethodsThe effectiveness of the Toolkit was tested with a cluster randomised controlled trial in 42 primary schools in Luwero District, Uganda. A full economic costing evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted alongside the trial. Both financial and economic costs were collected retrospectively from the provider’s perspective to estimate total and unit costs.ResultsThe total cost of setting up and running the Toolkit over the 18-month trial period is estimated at US$397 233, excluding process monitor (M&E) activities. The cost to run the intervention is US$7429 per school annually, or US$15 per primary school pupil annually, in the trial intervention schools. It is estimated that the intervention has averted 1620 cases of past-week physical violence during the 18-month implementation period. The total cost per case of violence averted is US$244, and the annual implementation cost is US$96 per case averted during the trial.ConclusionsThe GST is a cost-effective intervention for reducing violence against pupils in primary schools in Uganda. It compares favourably against other violence reduction interventions in the region.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of different methods of treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy in the south of Iran

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahia Namavar Jahromi ◽  
Elahe esmaili ◽  
Mozhgan Fardid ◽  
Jafari Abdosaleh ◽  
Zahra Kavosi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Double Dose ◽  
Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Dose Methotrexate ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Ectopic pregnancy is one of the most important causes of maternal mortality and infertility that may impose many costs on patients. Today, Surgery and pharmaceutical treatments are the common methods of treating the disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different methods of treating tubal ectopic pregnancy in the south of Iran.Methods: This study was an economic evaluation which analysed and compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of three treatment methods, including single-dose methotrexate, double-dose methotrexate, and surgery in patients with tubal ectopic pregnancy. In this study, a decision tree model was used. The outcomes included in the model were the percentage of successful treatment and the average utility score of each treatment method. The study was conducted from the social perspective and a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to measure the effects of uncertainty. The analysis of the collected data was performed using Excel and TreeAge software.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the surgery versus single-dose methotrexate was positive and equal to $5812 PPP; since it was less than the threshold, surgery was considered as a cost-effective method. The incremental cost-utility ratio also identified surgery as the best option. Moreover, the results of one-way showed the highest sensitivity to the effectiveness of single-dose methotrexate. Scatter plots also revealed that surgery in 82% and 96% of simulations was at the acceptable region compared with a single dose and double-dose methotrexate, respectively and below the threshold. It was identified as a more cost-effective strategy. Furthermore, the acceptability curves showed that in 81.4% of simulations, surgery was the most cost-effective treatment for thresholds less than 21011 PPP dollars.Conclusions: Based on the results of the present study, it is recommended that surgery can be used as the first line of treatment for ectopic. Also, the best drug strategy was single-dose methotrexate. Since these strategies reduce costs and increase treatment success and QALYs compared to double-dose methotrexate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document