scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of the Biozorb Device for Radiation Planning in Oncoplastic Surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramy Rashad ◽  
Kathryn Huber ◽  
Abhishek Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Oncoplastic Surgery ◽  
Adjuvant Radiation ◽  
Surgical Clips ◽  
Tumor Bed ◽  
Tissue Manipulation

Purpose: With the extent of breast tissue manipulation using oncoplastic surgical techniques, there lies a challenge in marking the tumor bed for adjuvant radiation therapy planning. Two competing techniques in doing so exist and involve the traditional placement of surgical clips in the surgical tumor bed or the newer technique of placing a Biozorb marker in the tumor bed. Our goal was to perform a cost-utility assessment to see which tumor bed marking approach is more cost-effective. Based on device list prices and clinical outcomes from a comprehensive literature review, we assessed if an approach either dominated or had an incremental cost-utility ratio of less than $50,000/QALY since either would signify cost-effectiveness. Results: From a cost comparison, the Biozorb marker ($1250) was far costlier than the clip applier device ($50). Our PRISMA search (Figure 1) reviewed 133 articles for clip placement and 42 articles for Biozorb placement in oncoplastic surgery with 2 clip placement articles and 3 Biozorb articles meeting criteria. The available data for either marking technique suggests reasonable tumor bed identification for adjuvant radiation treatment without clear clinical advantages supporting one technique over the other. Overall clinical equivalence in the setting of a clear cost advantage suggests dominant cost-effectiveness in favor of clips. Conclusion: Using surgical clips to identify the tumor bed in oncoplastic surgery is dominant and more cost-effective over the Biozorb technique as clips are relatively inexpensive while both techniques reasonably identify the tumor bed.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

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.

Smoking Cessation Therapy is a Cost-Effective Intervention to Avoid Tooth Loss in Subjects With Periodontitis – An Economic Evaluation 

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Luisa Silveira Souto ◽  
Fernanda Campos Almeida Carrer ◽  
Mariana Minatel Braga ◽  
Cláudio Mendes Pannuti
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Tooth Loss ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Per Oral ◽  
Smoking Cessation Therapy

Abstract Background: Smokers present a higher prevalence and severity of periodontitis and, consequently, higher prevalence of tooth loss. Smoking cessation improves the response to periodontal treatment and reduces tooth loss. So, the aim of this study was evaluated the efficiency in resources allocation when implementing smoking cessation therapy vs. its non-implementation in smokers with periodontitis. Methods: We adopted the Brazilian public system perspective to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per tooth loss avoided) and cost-utility (cost per oral-related quality-adjusted life-year ([QALY] gained) of implementing smoking cessation therapy. Base-case was defined as a 48 years-old male subject and horizon of 30 years. Effects and costs were combined in a decision analytic modeling framework to permit a quantitative approach aiming to estimate the value of the consequences of smoking cessation therapy adjusted for their probability of occurrence. Markov models were carried over annual cycles. Sensitivity analysis tested methodological assumptions. Results: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy had an average incremental cost of U$60.58 per tooth loss avoided and U$4.55 per oral related-QALY gained. Considering uncertainties, the therapy could be cost-effective in the most part of simulated cases, even being cheaper and more effective in 53% of cases in which the oral-health related outcome is used as effect. Considering a willingness-to-pay of US$100 per health effect, smoking cessation therapy was cost-effective, respectively, in 81% and 100% of cases in cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions: Implementation of smoking cessation therapy may be cost-effective, considering the avoidance of tooth loss and oral health-related consequences to patients.

Cost-effectiveness of obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: an early economic evaluation

2021 ◽  
pp. e20210011
Author(s):  
Chanh-Phong Tran ◽  
John J Kim ◽  
Jordan J Feld ◽  
William WL Wong
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Drug Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Decompensated Cirrhosis ◽  
Obeticholic Acid ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Alcoholic Steatohepatitis ◽  
Early Results

Background: Currently, there are no pharmacological options available for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In the 18-month interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (REGENERATE), early results demonstrated that obeticholic acid (OCA) 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis with no worsening of NASH among patients with NASH and fibrosis compared to placebo (PBO). This study aimed to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of OCA compared to PBO in NASH patients. Methods: A state-transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing two treatment strategies, PBO and OCA 25 mg, from a Canadian public payer perspective. The model time horizon was lifetime with annual cycle lengths. Cost and utility parameters were discounted at 1.5% annually. The efficacy data were obtained from the REGENERATE trial, and costs and utilities were derived from other published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: Treatment with OCA led to reductions of 3.58% in decompensated cirrhosis cases, 3.95% in hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.88% in liver transplant, and 6.01% in liver-related death. However, at an annual price of CDN$36,000, OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $815,514 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). An 88% reduction in drug price to an annual cost of $4,300 would make OCA cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusions: OCA failed to be cost-effective compared to PBO, despite demonstrating clinical benefits due to a high drug cost. A significant price reduction would be needed to make the drug cost-effective.

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-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.

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 Analysis of Pan-Genotypic Sofosbuvir-Based Regimens for Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Jun Zhou ◽  
Jing Cao ◽  
Hui Shi ◽  
Nasheen Naidoo ◽  
Sherehe Semba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Genotype 1 ◽  
Hcv Genotype ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Hcv Genotype 1

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1.Methods and Models: A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings.Results: Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option.Conclusions: SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document