A cost analysis of febrile neutropenia management in Australia: ambulatory v. in-hospital treatment

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Senthil Lingaratnam ◽  
Leon J. Worth ◽  
Monica A. Slavin ◽  
Craig A. Bennett ◽  
Suzanne W. Kirsa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Ambulatory Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Cost Structure ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Medical Complications

Background. Adult febrile neutropenic oncology patients, at low risk of developing medical complications, may be effectively and safely managed in an ambulatory setting, provided they are appropriately selected and adequate supportive facilities and clinical services are available to monitor these patients and respond to any clinical deterioration. Methods. A cost analysis was modelled using decision tree analysis, published cost and effectiveness parameters for ambulatory care strategies and data from the State of Victoria’s hospital morbidity dataset. Two-way sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulation were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of costs and outcomes associated with ambulatory care. Results. The modelled cost analysis showed that cost savings for two ambulatory care strategies were ~30% compared to standard hospital care. The weighted average cost saving per episode of ‘low-risk’ febrile neutropenia using Strategy 1 (outpatient follow-up only) was 35% (range: 7–55%) and that for Strategy 2 (early discharge and outpatient follow-up) was 30% (range: 7–39%). Strategy 2 was more cost-effective than Strategy 1 and was deemed the more clinically favoured approach. Conclusion. This study outlines a cost structure for a safe and comprehensive ambulatory care program comprised of an early discharge pathway with outpatient follow-up, and promotes this as a cost effective approach to managing ‘low-risk’ febrile neutropenic patients. What is known about the topic? Febrile neutropenia is a common complication of chemotherapy for patients with cancer. There is high level evidence supporting the use of ambulatory care strategies to manage patients with febrile neutropenia who are deemed to be at low risk of developing medical complications. What does this paper add? This paper highlights a cost structure for an adequately equipped and cost-effective ambulatory care strategy suitable for Australian hospitals to manage patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. What are the implications for practitioners? The strategy advocated in this paper affords eligible patients the choice of early discharge from hospital. It advocates for improved resource utilisation and expansion of outpatient services in order to minimise opportunity costs faced by cancer treatment facilities.

scholarly journals Ambulatory Outpatient Management of patients with low risk febrile neutropaenia

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 178-181
Author(s):  
Timothy Cooksley ◽  
◽  
Mark Holland ◽  
Jean Klastersky ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Medical Complications ◽  
Mascc Score ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Reduced Risk ◽  
Avoidance Cost

Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with only a minority developing significant medical complications. Scoring systems, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score, have been developed and validated to identify low risk patients. Caring for patients with low risk febrile neutropenia in an ambulatory setting is proven to be safe and effective. Benefits include admission avoidance, cost savings and reduced risk of nosocomial infections, as well as improved patient experience and satisfaction. Implementation of an ambulatory pathway for low risk febrile neutropenia provides an excellent opportunity for Acute Physicians and Oncologists to collaborate in delivering care for this group of patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis Using PEGylated Recombinant Human Granulocyte–Stimulating Factor as a Cost-Effective Measure in Malignant Neoplasms: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiuji Wu ◽  
Qiu Li ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Zhumei Luo ◽  
Jin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Malignant Neoplasms ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Stimulating Factor

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PEGylated recombinant human granulocyte–stimulating factor (PEG-rhG-CSF) as a means of achieving primary and secondary prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neutropenia cancer cases.Methods: Individuals who underwent PEG-rhG-CSF therapeutics were monitored for 12 months, together with thorough examination of individual medical records for extracting medical care costs. Both prophylaxis-based therapeutic options (primary/secondary) were scrutinized for cost-effectiveness, using a decision-making analysis model which derived the perspective of Chinese payers. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model.Results: In summary, 130 clinical cases treated using PEG-rhG-CSF prophylaxis were included in this study: 51 within the primary prophylaxis (PP) group and 79 within the secondary prophylaxis (SP) group. Compared with SP, PP-based PEG-rhG-CSF successfully contributed to a 14.3% reduction in febrile neutropenia. In general, PP was estimated to reduce costs by $4,701.81 in comparison to SP, with a gain of 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Equivalent results were found in differing febrile neutropenia (FN) risk subgroups. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for the average time of hospitalization and for the cost of FN.Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, PP with PEG-rhG-CSF should be considered cost-effective compared to SP strategies in patients who received chemotherapy regimens with a middle- to high-risk of FN.

scholarly journals The barts heart attack centre early discharge pathway:- a novel protocol for next day discharge after primary pci for ST-elevation myocardiai infarction

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Comer ◽  
O Casey-Gillman ◽  
E Moore ◽  
S Adey ◽  
S Mower
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Primary Pci ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Median Length ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Group 5

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction To respond to the challenges of COVID-19 and based on evidence confirming low rates of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) occurring between 24- and 48-hours post AMI (Acute Myocardial Infarction), we sought to design and implement a novel Early Hospital Discharge (EHD) pathway Aim The goal of the EHD protocol is to accurately and efficiently identify low-risk AMI patients who can be safely discharged between 24 and 48 hours after successful primary PCI, aiming to provide a  safe discharge for low risk patients, reduce length of stay  enhance the follow up of patients post AMI Methodology : Project was designed a QI project and patients were discharged with a structured follow up at 48 hours , 2 weeks and 8 weeks and with a interventional cardiologist at 3 months  Virtual follow up was conducted using a bespoke application enable a 2 way messaging and video consultation Patients with AMI are taken for primary PCI in an unselected manner which includes post cardiac arrest, intubated and ventilated patients Results :The median follow-up was 201 days (OQR: 98-268 days). In the early discharge group, there were 2 deaths (0.5%), both due to COVID-19 (both >30 days after d/c) with 0% cardiovascular mortality (comparator group 5% mortality, 2.5% cardiovascular  Overall, this resulted in a significant reduction in the overall length of stay for all patients presenting with STEMI undergoing primary PCI over the time period. The median length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2-5 days) from October 2019 to March 2020 before the pathway was introduced. Following the pathway introduction, from April 2020 to February 2021 the median length of stay was 2 days (1-4 days) (p < 0.0001), significantly reduced from pre pathway introduction Conclusion :Driven by the necessity to adapt to the pandemic, we report the safe and successful implementation of an early post MI discharge pathway with an integrated and structural multidisciplinary virtual follow up schedule.  This has shortened hospital admission times, decreasing the risk of nosocomial infections and optimised resource utilization, while at the same time enhancing the quality of post discharge care with high levels of patient satisfaction.

Treatment of acute pulmonary embolism as outpatients or following early discharge

2008 ◽  
Vol 100 (05) ◽  
pp. 756-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Janjua ◽  
Aaref Badshah ◽  
Fadi Matta ◽  
Liviu G. Danescu ◽  
Abdo Y. Yaekoub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Acute Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Average Hospital ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Pe

SummaryThe purpose of this systematic review is to test the hypothesis that carefully selected low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) can safely be treated entirely as outpatients or after early hospital discharge.Included articles were required to describe inclusion or exclusion criteria and outcome of patients treated for PE.Early hospital discharge was defined as an average hospital stay ≤3 days.Six investigations included patients with PE who were treated entirely as outpatients; two investigations included patients with PE who were treated after early discharge. All investigations included only low-risk patients or patients with small or medium sized PE. Outcome after 3-46 months in patients treated entirely as outpatients showed recurrent PE in 0% to 6.2% of patients, major bleeding in 0% to 2.8% with one death from an intracerebral bleed. Definite death from PE did not occur, but there was one possible death from PE. Outcome in three months in patients treated after early discharge showed no instances of recurrent PE. Major bleeding occurred in 0% to 3.7% of patients.There were no deaths from PE, but there was one death from bleeding. In conclusion, outpatient therapy of acute PE is probably safe in low-risk,carefully selected compliant patients who have access to outpatient care if necessary. Such outpatient treatment would be cost-effective.

Cost-Utility Of Bortezomib In Induction Treatment Prior To Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation (ASCT) In Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients In Canada

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1735-1735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Kouroukis ◽  
Darrell White ◽  
Morgan Kruse ◽  
Donna Lawrence ◽  
Cristina Trambitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Health State ◽  
Health States ◽  
Induction Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Introduction The effectiveness of bortezomib for induction treatment prior to ASCT in multiple myeloma (MM) patients has been demonstrated in a number of randomized, open-label phase III trials, including the IFM 2005-01 trial (Harousseau et al., J Clin Oncol 2010;28(30):4621-9). This trial showed that the addition of bortezomib as part of an induction treatment prior to ASCT resulted in statistically significant improvements in post-induction response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared to a non-bortezomib containing regimen (NBCR). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of a bortezomib-containing regimen (BCR) vs. a NBCR for induction treatment in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT from a Canadian public payer perspective, based on the results of the IFM 2005-01 study. Methods A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-utility over a lifetime horizon (50 years) in previously untreated MM patients undergoing induction and ASCT. The model simulated disease progression of patients with previously untreated MM through three health states: “progression-free”, “progression” and “death”, with all patients beginning in the progression-free state. The PFS and overall survival (OS) curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial were extrapolated beyond the study follow-up period to estimate the timeframe spent in each health state. Each health state was associated with a utility value and direct medical costs. Utilities for the progression-free and progression health states were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis for bortezomib and were 0.81 and 0.645, respectively (Hornberger et al., Eur J Haematol 2010;85(6):484-91). Transition probabilities between health states were estimated by calibrating the model to the PFS and OS curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial. In the base case, transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period were conservatively assumed to be equal for both treatment groups. Medical resource utilization was estimated using the IFM 2005-01 trial, and supplemented by published literature and clinical advisors. Clinical advisors also provided input on management of adverse events (> grade 3) and treatment of patients who progressed after induction and ASCT. Resource costs were estimated using Canadian sources ($CAN 2012) and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Because patients in each group incurred similar costs (i.e. cost of an ASCT), only incremental costs between the two arms were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results The mean total MM-related cost over the lifetime analysis in the model was $68,800 per patient treated with a BCR and $47,000 per patient treated with a NBCR. Addition of bortezomib to the induction regimen increased costs by $21,700 (see table). Over the model lifetime, a delay in progression with a BCR led to 0.25 years of additional survival compared to a NBCR and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.22 years. The incremental cost-utility ratio for induction using a BCR compared to a NBCR approach was $99,200/QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the major factors impacting the cost-utility ratio as: transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period, discounting, utilities and bortezomib costs. The probability of a BCR being cost-effective compared to a NBCR was 43.9% at a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusions A number of phase 3 trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of bortezomib as part of an induction regimen prior to ASCT. This analysis indicates that, from a Canadian perspective, induction treatment with a BCR in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT can be cost-effective at conventional decision thresholds with a cost-utility ratio of $99,200/QALY. Disclosures: Kouroukis: Janssen Inc.: Honoraria. White:Janssen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kruse:OptumInsight: Employment. Lawrence:OptumInsight: Employment. Trambitas:Janssen Inc.: Employment.

scholarly journals Cost‐Effectiveness of Advanced Neuroimaging for Transient and Minor Neurological Events in the Emergency Department

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ava L. Liberman ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Sara K. Rostanski ◽  
Natalie T. Cheng ◽  
Charles C. Esenwa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Neurological Symptoms ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses

Background Accurate diagnosis of patients with transient or minor neurological events can be challenging. Recent studies suggest that advanced neuroimaging can improve diagnostic accuracy in low‐risk patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms, but a cost‐effective emergency department diagnostic evaluation strategy remains uncertain. Methods and Results We constructed a decision‐analytic model to evaluate 2 diagnostic evaluation strategies for patients with low‐risk transient or minor neurological symptoms: (1) obtain advanced neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging brain and magnetic resonance angiography head and neck) on every patient or (2) current emergency department standard‐of‐care clinical evaluation with basic neuroimaging. Main probability variables were: proportion of patients with true ischemic events, strategy specificity and sensitivity, and recurrent stroke rate. Direct healthcare costs were included. We calculated incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios, conducted sensitivity analyses, and evaluated various diagnostic test parameters primarily using a 1‐year time horizon. Cost‐effectiveness standards would be met if the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was less than willingness to pay. We defined willingness to pay as $100 000 US dollars per quality‐adjusted life year. Our primary and sensitivity analyses found that the advanced neuroimaging strategy was more cost‐effective than emergency department standard of care. The incremental effectiveness of the advanced neuroimaging strategy was slightly less than the standard‐of‐care strategy, but the standard‐of‐care strategy was more costly. Potentially superior diagnostic approaches to the modeled advanced neuroimaging strategy would have to be >92% specific, >70% sensitive, and cost less than or equal to standard‐of‐care strategy’s cost. Conclusions Obtaining advanced neuroimaging on emergency department patient with low‐risk transient or minor neurological symptoms was the more cost‐effective strategy in our model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document