Pharmacoeconomic analysis of biological treatments for psoriatic arthritis

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Eandi ◽  
Carlo Salvarani
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Italian Market ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Hands And Feet

Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory and possibly destructive form of arthritis; left untreated, psoriatic arthritis can be a progressively disabling disease. The arthritic manifestations often include debilitating disease of the hands and feet, as well as painful inflammation of the tendon insertions and arthritis of the spine. The most common treatments prescribed for the psoriatic arthritis are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), COX-2 inhibitors, corticosteroids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Due to a recently suggested role of the tumour necrosis factor (TNFα) in the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis, new therapies specifically blocking TNFα have been investigated. Aim of the present study is to compare cost/effectiveness (CEA) and cost/utility (CUA) ratios of anti-TNF medications currently available on the Italian market: etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab. The evaluation was conducted through the development of a single Markov model. Clinical data were obtained from three Phase III trials attesting the clinical efficacy of the biological therapies. Both cost/effectiveness and cost/utility analysis were implemented through the deterministic evaluation and the probabilistic evaluation, in order to assess the convenience for the Italian National Healthcare Service. Adalimumab appears to be cost effective for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, especially considering the incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the incremental cost/utility ratio (ICUR); the results suggest that ICER and ICUR values of adalimumab over etanercept is definitely lower than the maximum acceptable willingness-to-pay value. Moreover, compared with infliximab, adalimumab is less costly and more effective.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1045-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Oldridge ◽  
Rod S Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
The Cost

Aims Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost–utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. Results Of 19 incremental cost–utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‘highly cost-effective’ or ‘high value’, with 26% ‘not cost-effective’ or of ‘low value’. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. Conclusions The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed (PEM) compared to current standards of care in 2nd-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6540-6540 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bhalla ◽  
C. Hibbert ◽  
J. Watkins ◽  
S. Beard ◽  
M. Cetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Current Standards

6540 Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pemetrexed (PEM) compared with current standards of care (SOC) in 2nd-line advanced NSCLC from a UK perspective. The SOC selected for the evaluation were: (i) docetaxel (DOC) as it is the standard active therapy in the UK and is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and (ii) best supportive care (BSC) as the majority patients in the UK who fail 1st-line therapy do not receive further chemotherapy. Methods: The analytic technique used was a cost-utility analysis (CUA) in the form of a Markov model. Utilities were generated from 100 members of the general public, considering tumor response status and toxicity, in accordance with the standard NICE appraisal methodology. Clinical inputs were derived from a pooled analysis phase III clinical trial data. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and UK national databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented for both life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life- years (QALY) gained. Conclusions: The incremental cost per LY and cost per QALY for pemetrexed in 2nd-line NSCLC are below £20,000, compared to docetaxel and BSC. Based on its survival and toxicity benefits PEM is a cost-effective option in within the UK. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

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 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.

scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambica Parmar ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Urban Emmenegger ◽  
Martin Smoragiewicz ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality, vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. Methods: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide + ADT, as compared to ADT alone for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. Results: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219,051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions >50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.

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.

Economic rationale on the use of m-Health in uncontrolled hypertensive outpatients: from three months and beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ionov ◽  
O.V Zhukova ◽  
N.E Zvartau ◽  
A.O Konradi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality

Abstract Background/Introduction Current scientific data show that blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with/without additional counseling is rather effective in hypertension (HTN) management. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term social sequelae are lacking. This is because of diverse technologies and economic climate which make results highly heterogeneous across countries. Purpose To construct predictive model of long-term outcomes and to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of BP telemonitoring and remote counseling (BPTM) using m-Health in Russian population of outpatients with HTN. Methods Total of 240 patients were randomized (2:1) to either BPTM (n=160, mean age 47 y.o.) and to usual care (UC, n=80, mean age 49 y.o.) with baseline, three-month follow-up clinic visits combined with ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). BPTM consisted of m-Health tool for patients, desktop module for clinicians. It enables BP data transfer and analysis, secure web chatting to support and counsel. Main outcomes were change in office, ambulatory systolic (S) BP and rate of BP control. A Markov cohort-based (1000 patients per study arm) model was developed and adopted a 10-year time horizon with 12-month time cycles. All patients started at a non-complicated HTN “well” state with a certain possibility of disease progression in a number of health states over a discrete time period. BPTM was compared with usual care in terms of 10-year healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) using a Ministry of Health of Russian Federation perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) represented economic analysis. Results BPTM was associated with steeper decrease in office, ambulatory SBP (−16,8 mm Hg and −8,9 mm Hg, respectively; p<0,05) with the same treatment intensity (2,4 drugs per patient). There were 102 (64%) and 11 (14%) patients with fully controlled HTN in BPTM and UC groups, respectively (OR 11,03 95% CI [5,4–22,5]). An ICER of BPTM resulted in additional 11,1 EUR/1 mm Hg/year. It is expected that BPTM will be at least 76% cost-effective as per relevant Russian willingness-to-pay threshold. In a modelled 10-year period BPTM was life-saving (9,71 vs 9,6 life years gained) and cheap (cost of illness 1,5 mln vs 2,1 mln EUR). BPTM was also more valuable (8,31 versus 7,82 QALYs gained) so the ICUR was 3601,47 EUR/QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness was further confirmed by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion BPTM seems to be clinically and economically effective when implemented into clinical practice. It provides greater BP reduction, improves BP control short-term. In a long-term it is likely to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cost-effective way. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm these pilot results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Russian Scientific Foundation

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document