scholarly journals COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TREATMENT STRATEGIES USING ABVD AND/OR BEACOPP IN THE TREATMENT OF ADVANCED-STAGE HODGKIN LYMPHOMA

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 148-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Prica ◽  
A. Vijenthira ◽  
K. Chan ◽  
M. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Advanced Stage ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Multiple Treatment

A cost-utility analysis of combined durvalumab and tremelimumab in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and high plasma tumour mutation burden (pTMB): A Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15581-e15581
Author(s):  
Monish Ahluwalia ◽  
Ambika Parmar ◽  
Eric Xueyu Chen ◽  
Derek J. Jonker ◽  
Jonathan M. Loree ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Lifetime Costs ◽  
Event Rates

e15581 Background: The randomized phase II CCTG CO.26 clinical trial investigated the use of combined durvalumab and tremelimumab vs. best supportive care (BSC) for patients with mCRC and suggested an increase in overall survival (OS). The largest benefit was seen in patients who were microsatellite stable (MSS) with a pTMB ≥ 28 variants per megabase. Considering significantly higher adverse event rates and costs associated with durvalumab and tremelimumab, it is important to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. Accordingly, we performed a cost-utility analysis of durvalumab and tremelimumab compared to BSC in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-enriched populations using CO.26 trial data. Methods: We developed a 4-state microsimulation model to evaluate the expected health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs of the treatment group compared to BSC over a lifetime horizon (5 years). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to compare treatment strategies. Direct trial data from CO.26 were used to inform model inputs, including OS curves, progression-free survival (PFS) curves, and adverse event rates. As health state utilities were not collected in CO.26, values from the CORRECT trial, a multi-centre randomized placebo-controlled phase III study for regorafenib in mCRC, were used. Costs of therapy, hospitalization due to adverse events, end-of-life care, and physician costs were derived from the literature and publicly available sources (in 2020 Canadian dollars). Since the monthly price of tremelimumab was unavailable, it was approximated with the price of another CTLA-4 inhibitor, ipilimumab. The base-case analysis evaluated these treatment strategies in the ITT population. Scenario analyses evaluated the cost-effectiveness in biomarker-enriched populations. Costs and effects were discounted at 1.5% as per Canadian guidelines. Results: In the base-case, expected LYs for combined durvalumab and tremelimumab and BSC were 0.75 and 0.51 (incremental (Δ) 0.24) respectively. Expected QALYs were 0.47 and 0.33 (Δ 0.14). Expected lifetime costs were $60 500 and $15 500 (Δ $45 000) for an ICUR of $320 000/QALY. In the biomarker-enriched subgroup, the expected LYs were 0.67 and 0.33 (Δ 0.34), expected QALYs were 0.43 and 0.22 (Δ 0.21), and expected lifetime costs were $62 000 and $15 200 (Δ $47 000). This represents an increase in the incremental QALYs by 50% and costs by 5% for an ICUR 30% lower than the base case at $220 000/QALY. Conclusions: Combined durvalumab and tremelimumab is not considered cost-effective in refractory mCRC under conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Cost-effectiveness is improved with biomarker enrichment for high pTMB, driven by the greater derived health outcomes in this subgroup.

Cost‐effectiveness in surgery: concepts of cost‐utility analysis explained

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ravi Vissapragada ◽  
Norma Bulamu ◽  
Jonathan Karnon ◽  
Roger Yazbek ◽  
David I. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis

scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of a consensus and evidence-based medication review to optimize and potentially reduce psychotropic drug prescription in institutionalized dementia patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mireia Massot Mesquida ◽  
Frans Folkvord ◽  
Gemma Seda ◽  
Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva ◽  
Pere Torán Monserrat
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Psychotropic Drugs ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Dementia Patients ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Growing evidence shows the effects of psychotropic drugs on the evolution of dementia. Until now, only a few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized dementia patients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of intervention performed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) (MN) based on consensus between specialized caregivers involved in the management of dementia patients for optimizing and potentially reducing the prescription of inappropriate psychotropic drugs in this population. This analysis was conducted using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) tool. Methods The MAFEIP tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across different studies in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as health and social care utilization. Cost estimates are based on scientific literature and expert opinion; they are direct costs and include medical visits, hospital care, medical tests and exams and drugs administered, among other concepts. The healthcare costs of patients using the intervention were calculated by means of a medication review that compared patients’ drug-related costs before, during and after the use of the intervention conducted in MN between 2012 and 2014. The cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of a health care system with a time horizon of 12 months. Results The tool calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention, revealing it to be dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. The ICER of the intervention was in the lower right quadrant, making it an intervention that is always accepted even with the lowest given Willingness to Pay (WTP) threshold value (€15,000). Conclusions The results of this study show that the intervention was dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. This dominant intervention is therefore recommended to interested investors for systematic application.

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 Incorporating Household Spillovers in Cost Utility Analysis: A Case Study Using Behavior Change in COPD

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
pp. 212-220
Author(s):  
Arjun Bhadhuri ◽  
Hareth Al-Janabi ◽  
Sue Jowett ◽  
Kate Jolly
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Household Member ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Household Members ◽  
The Impact

AbstractObjectivesIt is important to capture all health effects of interventions in cost-utility analyses conducted under a societal or healthcare perspective. However, this is rarely done. Household spillovers (health effects on patients’ other household members) may be particularly likely in the context of technologies and interventions to change behaviors that are interdependent in the household. Our objective was to prospectively collect outcome data from household members and illustrate how these can be included in a cost-utility analysis of a behavior change intervention in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsData were collected from patients’ household members (n = 153) alongside a randomized controlled trial of a COPD self-management intervention. The impact of the intervention on household members’ EQ-5D-5L scores (primary outcome), was evaluated. Analyses were then carried out to estimate household members’ quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and assess the impact of including these QALYs on cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe intervention had a negligible spillover on household members’ EQ-5D-5L scores (−0.007; p = .75). There were also no statistically significant spillovers at the 5 percent level in household member secondary outcomes. In the base-case model, the inclusion of household member QALYs in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) denominator marginally increased the ICER from GBP 10,271 (EUR 13,146) to GBP 10,991 (EUR 14,068) per QALY gained.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates it is feasible to prospectively collect and include household members’ outcome data in cost utility analysis, although the study highlighted several methodological issues. In this case, the intervention did not impact significantly on household members’ health or health behaviors, but inclusion of household spillovers may make a difference in other contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document