scholarly journals Cost effectiveness of the US Geological Survey's stream-gaging programs in New Hampshire and Vermont

1986 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 555-561
Author(s):  
Louise Rosenmayr-Templeton

This industry update features a round-up of pharmaceutical news in May 2019 based on press releases and websites. The month was characterized by the achievement of significant milestones in gene therapy. The biggest of these was the US FDA’s approval of Zolgensma®. This medicine sums up the promise and price of genetic medicine. On one hand the clinical results show Zolgensma can dramatically improve the prognosis for infants with spinal muscular atrophy after just one administration, while on the other, it has been priced at around US$2.1 million. With more such therapies likely to reach the market, the debate on Zolgensma goes beyond cost, to overall affordability, the true meaning of cost–effectiveness and how to reward companies for effective, innovative medicines.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A457-A458 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Graham ◽  
H Knox ◽  
LM Hess ◽  
M Jen ◽  
G Cuyun Carter ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 671-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Birgitta von Schéele ◽  
Maria Fernandez ◽  
Susan Lynn Hogue ◽  
Winghan Jacqueline Kwong

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Murray ◽  
Sam H Hessami ◽  
Dmitry Gultyaev ◽  
Johanna Lister ◽  
Roger Dmochowski ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Richard W. Bolton ◽  
Paul Horstmann ◽  
Darcy Peruzzotti ◽  
Tom Rando

Shipbuilding in the United States is characterized by large teams of suppliers and subcontractors who collaborate and support shipbuilders. It is important that these shipbuilding teams function as a single integrated organization: A Virtual Enterprise. The inefficiencies and impediments caused by each team member using their own choice of information technologies, software, data management and processes must be addressed to increase overall US shipbuilding efficiency and cost effectiveness. The NIIIP SPARS project is developing the information infrastructure and protocols to enable shipbuilding Virtual Enterprises that will improve collaboration and information exchange within the US shipbuilding community.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youwen Zhu ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Shuosha Li ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background:The phase III clinical trial Keynote-604 indicated that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits in Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers’ perspective.Methods: A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide (EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years (LYs), quality adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In addition, We also considered subgroup cost-effectiveness.Results: Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs (0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of pembrolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed there was 0% probability that pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY in the US. The results of subgroup probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.Conclusion: From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option as first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.


Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars W Andersen ◽  
Mathias J Holmberg ◽  
Asger Granfeldt ◽  
Lyndon P James ◽  
Lisa Caulley

Introduction: Despite a consistent association with improved outcomes, automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are used in only approximately 10% of public out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One of the barriers towards increased use might be cost. The objective of this study was to provide a contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of public AEDs in the United States (US) to inform guidelines and public health initiatives. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of public AEDs to no AEDs for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the US over a life-time horizon. The analysis assumed a societal perspective and results are presented as costs (in 2017 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Model inputs were based on reviews of the literature. For the base case, we modelled an annual cardiac arrest incidence per AED of 20%. It was assumed that AED use was associated with a 52% relative increase in survival to hospital discharge with a favorable neurological outcome in those with a shockable rhythm. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for joint parameter uncertainty. Consistent with recent guidelines from the American Heart Association, we used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Results: The no AED strategy resulted in 1.63 QALYs at a cost of $42,757. The AED strategy yielded an additional 0.26 QALYs for an incremental increase in cost of $13,793 per individual. The AED strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $53,797 per QALY gained. The yearly incidence of cardiac arrests occurring in the presence of an AED had minimal effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio except at very low incidences. At an incidence of 1%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $101,040 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses across a plausible range of health-care and societal estimates, the AED strategy remained cost-effective. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the AED strategy was cost-effective in 43%, 85%, and 91% of the scenarios at a threshold of $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusion: Public AEDs are a cost-effective public health intervention in the US. These findings support widespread dissemination of public AEDs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document