scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy Program

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Villa ◽  
Lucía Fernández–Ortiz ◽  
Jesús Cuervo ◽  
Pablo Rebollo ◽  
Rafael Selgas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapy ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Markov Chain Model ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chain Model ◽  
Therapy Program ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

♦BackgroundWe undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) program for end-stage renal disease patients from a societal perspective. The current Spanish situation was compared with several hypothetical scenarios.♦MethodsA Markov chain model was used as a foundation for simulations of the Spanish RRT program in three temporal horizons (5, 10, and 15 years). The current situation (scenario 1) was compared with three different scenarios: increased proportion of overall scheduled (planned) incident patients (scenario 2); constant proportion of overall scheduled incident patients, but increased proportion of scheduled incident patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), resulting in a lower proportion of scheduled incident patients on hemodialysis (HD) (scenario 3); and increased overall proportion of scheduled incident patients together with increased scheduled incidence of patients on PD (scenario 4).♦ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of scenarios 2, 3, and 4, when compared with scenario 1, were estimated to be, respectively, -€83 150, -€354 977, and -€235 886 per incremental quality-adjusted life year (ΔQALY), evidencing both moderate cost savings and slight effectiveness gains. The net health benefits that would accrue to society were estimated to be, respectively, 0.0045, 0.0211, and 0.0219 ΔQALYs considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35 000/ΔQALY.♦ConclusionsScenario 1, the current Spanish situation, was dominated by all the proposed scenarios. Interestingly, scenarios 3 and 4 showed the best results in terms of cost-effectiveness. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, an increase in the overall scheduled incidence of RRT, and particularly that of PD, should be promoted.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of renal replacement therapy in Austria

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 2988-2995 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Haller ◽  
G. Gutjahr ◽  
R. Kramar ◽  
F. Harnoncourt ◽  
R. Oberbauer
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Replacement Therapy ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Health Economics of Vaccination and Immunization Practices

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Szucs
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Vaccination Programs ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Wide Range

The economic importance of vaccines lies partly in the burden of disease that can be avoided and partly in the competition for resources between vaccines and other interventions. Decision-makers are increasingly demanding hard economic data as a basis for the allocation of limited healthcare resources. The main types of evaluation available are cost-benefit analysis (best use of allocated resources), cost-effectiveness analysis (a tool that helps policy-makers decide on the overall allocation of resources), and cost-utility analysis (quality-adjusted life year [QALY] which allows for a direct comparison of a wide range of medical interventions). The cost per QALY for a range of vaccinations can be compared in order to plan a vaccination program. Public health vaccines warrant a cost-benefit approach, in order to determine if they are worthwhile, whereas recommended vaccines might be more usefully assessed by cost-effectiveness analysis. Although cost-savings do not necessarily equate with cost-effectiveness, cost-savings are achieved in many vaccination programs.

scholarly journals Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Jordan E. Anderson ◽  
Ari D. Panzer ◽  
Elle F. Pope ◽  
Brittany N. D'Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
English Language ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Cost

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting “under-studied” conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and “over-studied” conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document