Use of the Ring Wound Protector in Open Appendectomy: A Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1976
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Tree ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Wound Protector

Objective: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of ring wound protector (RWP) used in open appendectomy. Materials and Methods: The present study was a decision-tree-based analysis. Model inputs, including costs, utilities, and probabilities of surgical site infection (SSI), were retrieved from the previous studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented the cost of one additional quality-adjusted life day (QALD). This ratio was calculated by dividing the incremental cost [Thai Baht (THB)] by the incremental QALD. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying each input parameter to see how ICER change. Monte-Carlo simulation with 5,000 replications was used to estimate probabilistic ICER and construct the acceptability curve, demonstrating how the probability of being cost-effective changed when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was shifted. Results: The deterministic ICER of 64,630.78 THB/QALD did not favor RWP use compared with the WTP threshold of 10,000 THB/QALD. However, if the threshold was shifted to 100,000 THB/QALD, it would yield approximately 75% probability of being cost-effective from RWP. Threshold analysis indicated that RWP should cost 281, 301, and 661 THB to be cost-effective at the threshold of 500, 1,000, and 10,000 THB/QALD, respectively. Conclusion: Routine RWP use might not be cost-effective when QALD is the outcome of interest. Based on the results from the present study, policy-makers could be informed that the adoption of this health technology might not be suitable. Keywords: Ring wound protector; Appendectomy; Cost-utility analysis; Decision tree model

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

scholarly journals A one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

Trauma ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell S Renna ◽  
Cristiano van Zeller ◽  
Farah Abu-Hijleh ◽  
Cherlyn Tong ◽  
Jasmine Gambini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
One Year ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost–utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost–utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.’s National Health Service. Methods A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost–utility analysis was then conducted. Results A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness’s willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%. Conclusion Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

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

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

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

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial)

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Panca ◽  
Deborah Christie ◽  
Tim J Cole ◽  
Silvia Costa ◽  
John Gregson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.DesignCost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity settings in Greater London, England.Participants174 young people with obesity aged 12–19 years.InterventionsIntervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6 months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice.Main outcome measuresMean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).ResultsMean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI −0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120 630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20 000 or £30 000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN99840111.

scholarly journals Economic impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing and related adverse events in older people: a cost-utility analysis using Markov models

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e021832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Caitriona Cahir ◽  
Kathleen Bennett ◽  
Tom Fahey
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Markov Models ◽  
Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Maximal Dose ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing ◽  
Utility Analysis

ObjectivesTo determine the economic impact of three drugs commonly involved in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in adults aged ≥65 years, including their adverse effects (AEs): long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at maximal dose; to assess cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP of each drug.DesignCost-utility analysis. We developed Markov models incorporating the AEs of each PIP, populated with published estimates of probabilities, health system costs (in 2014 euro) and utilities.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of 65 year olds analysed over 35 1-year cycles with discounting at 5% per year.Outcome measuresIncremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with 95% credible intervals (CIs, generated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis) between each PIP and an appropriate alternative strategy. Models were then used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP for each of the three drug classes.ResultsAll three PIP drugs and their AEs are associated with greater cost and fewer QALYs compared with alternatives. The largest reduction in QALYs and incremental cost was for benzodiazepines compared with no sedative medication (€3470, 95% CI €2434 to €5001; −0.07 QALYs, 95% CI −0.089 to –0.047), followed by NSAIDs relative to paracetamol (€806, 95% CI €415 and €1346; −0.07 QALYs, 95% CI −0.131 to –0.026), and maximal dose PPIs compared with maintenance dose PPIs (€989, 95% CI -€69 and €2127; −0.01 QALYs, 95% CI −0.029 to 0.003). For interventions to reduce PIP, at a willingness-to-pay of €45 000 per QALY, targeting NSAIDs would be cost-effective up to the highest intervention cost per person of €1971. For benzodiazepine and PPI interventions, the equivalent cost was €1480 and €831, respectively.ConclusionsLong-term benzodiazepine and NSAID prescribing are associated with significantly increased costs and reduced QALYs. Targeting inappropriate NSAID prescribing appears to be the most cost-effective PIP intervention.

Economic evaluation of compression stockings for the prevention of venous leg ulcer recurrence in Ontario

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandjar Djalalov ◽  
Shayan Sehatzadeh ◽  
David H Keast ◽  
William WL Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Ulcer Recurrence ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Compression Stockings ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Life Years

Objective: Approximately between 1.5 and 3.0 per 1000 people are affected by venous leg ulcers (VLUs). The treatment and management of VLUs is costly and recurrence is a major concern. There is evidence that compression stockings can reduce the rate of re-ulceration compared with no compression. We present the first cost-effective analysis of compression stockings in preventing recurrence of VLUs from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. Method: A cost-utility analysis with a five-year time horizon was conducted. Use of compression stockings was compared with usual care (no compression stockings). We simulated a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with healed VLUs, using a state-transition model. Model input parameters were obtained mainly from the published literature. We estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs. We conducted various sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were associated with higher costs and increased QALYs. Cost-utility analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of compression stockings was $23,864 per QALY gained compared with no compression stockings. The most influential drivers of cost-effectiveness were the utility value of healed VLUs, cost of stockings, number of stocking replacements, monthly prevention cost and the risk of VLU recurrence. Conclusion: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were cost-effective in preventing VLUs, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. These observations were consistent even when uncertainty in model inputs and parameters were considered.

VP53 Cost-Utility Analysis: Adalimumab Verus Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis – Brazil

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 171-172
Author(s):  
Grazielle Silva ◽  
Juliana Alvares ◽  
Eli Iola Andrade ◽  
Mariangela Cherchiglia ◽  
Augusto Guerra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Tnf Alpha ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
The Cost

INTRODUCTION:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an inflammatory, autoimmune disease of unknown etiology that usually results in joint lesions and physical incapacitation. RA treatment includes disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), synthetic (sDMARD) and/or biologics (bDMARD). In this study we carried out a cost-utility analysis comparing Adalimumab (ADA) versus Etanercept (ETA), with or without synthetic DMARDs (± sDMARD).METHODS:Effectiveness measures used were the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) obtained from an open prospective cohort study with Brazilian RA patients. Costs were obtained from a historical cohort composed of every patient who was prescribed medicines to treat RA in the State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. A public sector perspective was adopted. The Markov model included six-month cycles, time horizon of 5 years and 5 percent discount rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying costs and outcome values.RESULTS:There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two bDMARDs. Treatment with ETA (± sDMARD) was more expensive after 5 years of follow-up: incremental cost of USD28,210.87. Overall, treatment with ADA (± sDMARD) was more cost-effective: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ETA (± sDMARD) was USD79,148.34/ QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that this was sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD).CONCLUSIONS:Currently two Anti-tumour Necrosis Factor Alpha (anti-TNF alpha) medicines – ADA and ETA are available within the Brazilian public health system in addition to infliximab. Treatment with ADA (±sDMARD) was more cost-effective with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio for ETA (±sDMARD) at USD79,148.34 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that outcomes are sensitive to changes in the cost of ETA (± sDMARD) treatment. Overall, both therapeutic alternatives are valuable from the public sector perspective especially when the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines are properly applied in patients no longer responding to treatment. Alternatives are needed as some patients will respond differently to different anti-TNF alpha medicines.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document