scholarly journals The COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF FOUR CHELATION REGIMENS FOR Β-THALASSEMIA MAJOR: A CHINESE PERSPECTIVE

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e2020029
Author(s):  
Jialian Li
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Thalassemia Major ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Background: The four most commonly used chelation regimens for β-thalassemia major patients in China are a combination therapy of deferoxamine and deferiprone (DFO+DFP), deferoxamine(DFO) monotherapy, deferiprone(DFP) monotherapy and deferasirox(DFX) monotherapy. Such patients use iron chelators their whole lives, resulting in enormous treatment costs. This study analyses the cost-utility of these four regimens from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov decision model was used over a 70-year time horizon and was populated using clinical data from a systematic literature review. We obtained utility data from local and previous research. Costs were estimated using Chinese national sources. Results: From the base-case analysis results, DFP was the most cost-effective chelation regimen, followed by DFO+DFP, DFO and DFX. DFP had a 99.60%, 78.10% and 64.40% likelihood of being cost-effective versus DFX, DFO and DFO+DFP, respectively, at a payment threshold of 193,932.00 CNY/QALY. Conclusions: DFP was the most cost-effective chelation regimen for β-thalassemia major patients, followed by DFO+DFP, DFO and DFX. Using DFP as the primary treatment regimen may potentially result in cost-savings and QALY gains for the Chinese healthcare system. To increase these benefits, the Chinese government and clinicians should lower drug costs, increase drug utility and reduce mortality and morbidity. Changes in influential parameters easily affect the results of DFO+DFP versus DFP and of DFP versus DFO; clinicians should focus on such parameters and adjust the regimens accordingly.

scholarly journals Cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b infection in China

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e035224
Author(s):  
Haoya Yun ◽  
Guoqiang Zhao ◽  
Xiaojie Sun ◽  
Lizheng Shi
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Direct Acting Antivirals ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the cost–utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) compared with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Chinese patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV).DesignA Markov model was developed to estimate the disease progression of patients with HCV over a lifetime horizon from the healthcare system perspective. Efficacy, clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the published literature. Drug costs were from the market price survey, and health costs for Markov health states were sourced from a Chinese study. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of input parameters on the results.InterventionsSOF/VEL was compared with sofosbuvir+ribavirin (SR), sofosbuvir+dasabuvir (SD), daclatasvir+asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) and elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR).Primary and secondary outcomesCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost–utility ratios (ICURs).ResultsSOF/VEL was economically dominant over SR and SD. However, 3D was economically dominant compared with SOF/VEL. Compared with DCV/ASV, SOF/VEL was cost-effective with the ICUR of US$1522 per QALY. Compared with EBR/GZR, it was not cost-effective with the ICUR of US$369 627 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of SOF/VEL to the lower value of CI resulted in dominance over EBR/GZR and 3D. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 3D was cost-effective in 100% of iterations in patients with genotype (GT) 1b and SOF/VEL was not cost-effective.ConclusionsCompared with other oral DAA agents, SOF/VEL treatment was not the most cost-effectiveness option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b in China. Lower the price of SOF/VEL will make it cost-effective while simplifying treatment and achieving the goal of HCV elimination.

Nivolumab in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A cost-utility analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18331-e18331
Author(s):  
Jacques Raphael ◽  
Zhuolu Sun ◽  
Georg A. Bjarnason ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
David M Naimark
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

e18331 Background: Nivolumab was recently shown to improve overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life compared to Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients previously treated with antiangiogenic therapies (CheckMate-025 trial). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Methods: To evaluate the cost-utility of Nivolumab versus Everolimus, a Markov cohort model that incorporated data from the phase 3 CheckMate-025 trial and other sources was developed. The outcomes of interest were healthcare costs, life-months and quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) gained with Nivolumab as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the incremental net monetary benefit. A lifetime time horizon was used in the base case with costs and outcomes discounted 5% annually. The probabilities of progression and death from cancer and utility values were captured from the CheckMate-025 trial. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses (SAs) were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results: Compared to Everolimus, treatment with Nivolumab provided an additional 3.9 QALMs at an incremental cost of 33,386 Canadian dollars (CAD). The resulting ICER was 8,608CAD per QALM gained. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000CAD per Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ( = 4,167CAD per QALM), Nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case. In one-way SAs, Nivolumab cost, median OS and treatment duration on Nivolumab were sensitive to changes with plausible threshold values. Assuming a WTP of 100,000CAD per QALY ( = 8,334CAD per QALM) and a scenario of Nivolumab cost with no drug wastage, Nivolumab became a cost-effective strategy with an ICER of 7,881CAD per QALM. Conclusions: With its current price , Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with Everolimus for previously treated mRCC patients from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective. While mRCC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from Nivolumab, considerations should be given to reduce drug wastage and increase the WTP threshold to render this strategy more affordable.

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-utility of two minimally-invasive surgical techniques for operable oropharyngeal cancer: Transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enea Parimbelli ◽  
Federico Soldati ◽  
Lorry Duchoud ◽  
Gian Luca Armas ◽  
John R. de Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Transoral Robotic Surgery ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Base Case Analysis ◽  
Hospital Perspective ◽  
Decision Analytical Model ◽  
The Cost

AbstractImportanceTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser micro-surgery (TLM) are two different but competing minimally invasive techniques to surgically remove operable oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers (OPSCC). As of now, no comparative analysis as to the cost-utility of these techniques exists.ObjectiveRecent population-level data suggest for TORS and TLM equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, need for adjuvant chemoradiation, and learning curves. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare TORS and TLM from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view using a decision-analytical model from a Swiss hospital perspective.DesignOur decision-analytical model combines decision trees and a Markov model to compare TORS and TLM strategies. Model parameters were quantified using available literature, original cost data from two Swiss university tertiary referral centers, and utilities elicited directly from a Swiss population sample using standard gamble. C/U and sensitivity analyses were used to generate results and gauge model robustness.SettingSwiss hospital perspectiveInterventionCost-utility analysisMain outcome measureComparative cost-utility data from TLM and TORSResultsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment (pTorsAlone>0.407), whereby in an interval between 55%-62% (pTorsAlone 0.38-0.45) cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Also, exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.ConclusionTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters i.e. the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.Key pointsQuestionCompare cost-utility of TORS versus TLMFindingsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55%-62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.MeaningTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with colony-simulating factor (CSF) when compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma undergoing curative chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6558-6558
Author(s):  
K. K. Chan ◽  
K. R. Imrie ◽  
S. M. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

6558 Background: The 2006 ASCO guideline recommends PP with CSF for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, partially based on previous cost-minimization analyses showing that CSF saved costs when compared with no CSF by reducing hospitalization from febrile neutropenia (FN) when the risk of FN was > 20%. However, these studies examined only one cycle of chemotherapy and did not account for costs of CSF in subsequent cycles, did not consider SP, and did not consider patients’ preferences. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP with SP in this setting using a Markov model for a time horizon of 8 cycles of chemotherapy with a government payer perspective. Costs were adjusted to 2006 $CAD. Ontario health economic data were used. The cost of hospitalization for FN was obtained from Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Data for efficacies of CSF, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: The base case costs for PP and SP were $22,077 and $17,641. The QALYs of PP and SP were 0.254 and 0.248. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $739,999/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that in order for PP to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization per episode of FN had to be > $31,138 (i.e. 2.5 times > base case), the cost of CSF per cycle had to be < $896 (base case = $1,960), the risk of FN in the 1st cycle had to be > 48% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with CSF had to be > 97% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all other cost, probability and utility variables. First order microsimulation showed that < 17% of simulations were cost-effective. Conclusions: PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP for this population under most assumptions. PP only becomes attractive in places where the cost of hospitalization for FN is much more than that of Ontario, or the cost of CSF is under $896 per cycle. The costs of CSF and hospitalization in all cycles (instead of just one cycle) should be accounted for in any economic evaluation of CSF. Current guidelines recommending PP in this population should be revisited. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Using Mass Media to Prevent Tobacco Use among Youth and Young Adults: The FinishIt Campaign

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (22) ◽  
pp. 4312
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. Hair ◽  
David R. Holtgrave ◽  
Alexa R. Romberg ◽  
Morgane Bennett ◽  
Jessica M. Rath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tobacco Prevention ◽  
Prevention Campaign ◽  
Program Costs ◽  
The Cost

Mass media campaigns have been hailed as some of the most effective tobacco prevention interventions. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of the national tobacco prevention campaign, truth® FinishIt, to determine the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved and the return on investment (ROI). The cost–utility analysis used four main parameters: program costs, number of smoking careers averted, treatment costs, and number of QALYs saved whenever a smoking career is averted. Parameters were varied to characterize cost-effectiveness under different assumptions (base case, conservative, optimistic, and most optimistic). The ROI estimate compared campaign expenditures to the cost saved due to the campaign implementation. Analyses were conducted in 2019. The base case analysis indicated the campaign results in a societal cost savings of $3.072 billion. Under the most conservative assumptions, estimates indicated the campaign was highly cost-effective at $1076 per QALY saved. The overall ROI estimate was $174 ($144 in costs to smokers, $24 in costs to the smoker’s family, and $7 in costs to society) in cost savings for every $1 spent on the campaign. In all analyses, the FinishIt campaign was found to reach or exceed the threshold levels of cost savings or cost-effectiveness, with a positive ROI. These findings point to the value of this important investment in the health of the younger generation.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line (1L) treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany: Data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 800-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ilse van Oostrum ◽  
Chris Pescott ◽  
Alma Katharina Steinbach-Buechert ◽  
Bart Heeg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Primary Tumors ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

800 Background: The randomized, phase 3 FIRE-3 trial evaluated 1L FOLFIRI + cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC; overall survival favored FOLFIRI + cetuximab by > 8 months. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs that of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab as 1L treatment for patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC (including the patient subgroup with RAS wt, left-sided [LS] primary tumors, as LS is a predictive factor). Methods: A standard oncology 3–health-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to analyze the costs and health benefits of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs those of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab from a German payer perspective based on data from FIRE-3 and the literature. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. A 3.5% discounting rate was applied to the modeled costs and outcomes. Results: Discounted costs, health gains, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for patients with RAS wt (base case) and patients with RAS wt, LS (subgroup) mCRC are summarized in the Table. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at relevant European willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €55,000 and €80,000, FOLFIRI + cetuximab had a 64.0% and 81.6% (base case) and 80.5% and 92.4% (subgroup) probability of being cost-effective vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab, respectively. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC at official WTP thresholds applied by relevant European health technology assessment agencies. The cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab is more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with RAS wt, LS tumors.[Table: see text]

Cost-Utility Analysis of Primary Prophylaxis Versus Secondary Prophylaxis With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Elderly Patients With Diffuse Aggressive Lymphoma Receiving Curative-Intent Chemotherapy

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1064-1071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelvin K.W. Chan ◽  
Eric Siu ◽  
Murray D. Krahn ◽  
Kevin Imrie ◽  
Shabbir M.H. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Purpose The 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline recommended primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) instead of secondary prophylaxis (SP) for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma receiving chemotherapy. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PP when compared with SP. Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP to SP for diffuse aggressive lymphoma. We used a Markov model with an eight-cycle chemotherapy time horizon with a government-payer perspective and Ontario health, economic, and cost data. Data for efficacies of G-CSF, probabilities, and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses (willingness-to-pay threshold = $100,000/QALY) showed that if PP were to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.5 × > base case), the cost of G-CSF per cycle less than $960 (base case = $1,960), the risk of first-cycle FN more than 47% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with G-CSF more than 91% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all variables. PSA revealed a 10% probability of PP being cost-effective over SP at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusion PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP in this population. PP becomes attractive only if the cost of hospitalization for FN is significantly higher or the cost of G-CSF is significantly lower.

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of trabecular micro-bypass stents (TBS) in patients with mild-to-moderate open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
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 Background Glaucoma 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 was 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. Methods Simulation 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. Results Results 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 (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 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 cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) 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. Conclusions The 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.

scholarly journals OP0198-HPR A STRUCTURED MODEL FOR OA CARE IN PRIMARY HEALTHCARE IS A COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO USUAL CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH HIP AND KNEE OA

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 119-120
Author(s):  
N. Østerås ◽  
E. Aas ◽  
T. Moseng ◽  
L. Van Bodegom-Vos ◽  
K. Dziedzic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Structured Model ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

Background:To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international treatment recommendations. A previous analysis of a cluster RCT (cRCT) showed that compared to usual care, the intervention group reported higher quality of care and greater satisfaction with care. Also, more patients were treated according to international guidelines and fulfilled recommendations for physical activity at the 6-month follow-up.Objectives:To assess the cost-utility of a structured model for hip or knee OA care.Methods:A cRCT with stepped-wedge cohort design was conducted in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) in 2015-17. The OA care model was implemented in one cluster at the time by switching from “usual care” to the structured model. The implementation of the model was facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) with an update on OA treatment recommendations. The GPs explained the OA diagnosis and treatment alternatives, provided pharmacological treatment when appropriate, and suggested referral to physiotherapy. The PT-led patient OA education programme was group-based and lasted 3 hours followed by an 8–12-week individually tailored resistance exercise programme with twice weekly 1-hour supervised group sessions (5–10 patients per PT). An optional 10-hours Healthy Eating Program was available. Participants were ≥45 years with symptomatic hip or knee OA.Costs were measured from the healthcare perspective and collected from several sources. Patients self-reported visits in primary healthcare at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Secondary healthcare visits and joint surgery data were extracted from the Norwegian Patient Register. The health outcome, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), was estimated based on the EQ-5D-5L scores at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The result of the cost-utility analysis was reported using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs relative to incremental QALYs (QALYs gained). Based on Norwegian guidelines, the threshold is €27500. Sensitivity analyses were performed using bootstrapping to assess the robustness of reported results and presented in a cost-effectiveness plane (Figure 1).Results:The 393 patients’ mean age was 63 years (SD 9.6) and 74% were women. 109 patients were recruited during control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). Only the intervention group had a significant increase in EQ-5D-5L utility scores from baseline to 12 months follow-up (mean change 0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05) with QALYs gained: 0.02 (95% CI -0.08, 0.12). The structured OA model cost approx. €301 p.p. with an additional €50 for the Healthy Eating Program. Total 12 months healthcare cost p.p. was €1281 in the intervention and €3147 in the control group, resulting in an incremental cost of -€1866 (95% CI -3147, -584) p.p. Costs related to surgical procedures had the largest impact on total healthcare costs in both groups. During the 12-months follow-up period, 5% (n=14) in the intervention compared to 12% (n=13) in the control group underwent joint surgery; resulting in a mean surgical procedure cost of €553 p.p. in the intervention as compared to €1624 p.p. in the control group. The ICER was -€93300, indicating that the OA care model resulted in QALYs gained and cost-savings. At a threshold of €27500, it is 99% likely that the OA care model is a cost-effective alternative.Conclusion:The results of the cost-utility analysis show that implementing a structured model for OA care in primary healthcare based on international guidelines is highly likely a cost-effective alternative compared to usual care for people with hip and knee OA. More studies are needed to confirm this finding, but this study results indicate that implementing structured OA care models in primary healthcare may be beneficial for the individual as well as for the society.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document