scholarly journals The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (48) ◽  
pp. 1-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pawana Sharma ◽  
Graham Scotland ◽  
Moira Cruickshank ◽  
Emma Tassie ◽  
Cynthia Fraser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Self Testing

BackgroundSelf-monitoring (self-testing and self-management) could be a valid option for oral anticoagulation therapy monitoring in the NHS, but current evidence on its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness is limited.ObjectivesWe investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care coagulometers for the self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard clinic monitoring.Data sourcesWe searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Bioscience Information Service, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2007 to May 2013. Reports published before 2007 were identified from the existing Cochrane review (major databases searched from inception to 2007). The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, other relevant reviews, routine sources of cost data and clinical experts’ advice.Review methodsWe assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating self-monitoring in people with atrial fibrillation or heart valve disease requiring long-term anticoagulation therapy. CoaguChek®XS and S models (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), INRatio2®PT/INR monitor (Alere Inc., San Diego, CA USA), and ProTime Microcoagulation system®(International Technidyne Corporation, Nexus Dx, Edison, NJ, USA) coagulometers were compared with standard monitoring. Where possible, we combined data from included trials using standard inverse variance methods. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period.ResultsWe identified 26 RCTs (published in 45 papers) with a total of 8763 participants. CoaguChek was used in 85% of the trials. Primary analyses were based on data from 21 out of 26 trials. Only four trials were at low risk of bias. Major clinical events: self-monitoring was significantly better than standard monitoring in preventing thromboembolic events [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.84;p = 0.004]. In people with artificial heart valves (AHVs), self-monitoring almost halved the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.82;p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92;p = 0.02). There was greater reduction in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality through self-management but not through self-testing. Intermediate outcomes: self-testing, but not self-management, showed a modest but significantly higher percentage of time in therapeutic range, compared with standard care (weighted mean difference 4.44, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18;p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes: improvements in patients’ quality of life related to self-monitoring were observed in six out of nine trials. High preference rates were reported for self-monitoring (77% to 98% in four trials). Net health and social care costs over 10 years were £7295 (self-monitoring with INRatio2); £7324 (standard care monitoring); £7333 (self-monitoring with CoaguChek XS) and £8609 (self-monitoring with ProTime). The estimated quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain associated with self-monitoring was 0.03. Self-monitoring with INRatio2 or CoaguChek XS was found to have ≈ 80% chance of being cost-effective, compared with standard monitoring at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsCompared with standard monitoring, self-monitoring appears to be safe and effective, especially for people with AHVs. Self-monitoring, and in particular self-management, of anticoagulation status appeared cost-effective when pooled estimates of clinical effectiveness were applied. However, if self-monitoring does not result in significant reductions in thromboembolic events, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, based on a comparison of annual monitoring costs alone. Trials investigating the longer-term outcomes of self-management are needed, as well as direct comparisons of the various point-of-care coagulometers.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004944.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Early invasive strategy in senior patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: is it cost-effective? - a decision-analytic model and value of information analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e030678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julija Simpson ◽  
Mehdi Javanbakht ◽  
Luke Vale
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Information Analysis ◽  
Invasive Strategy ◽  
Early Invasive Strategy

BackgroundNon-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is the most common type of heart attack in the UK and it is becoming increasingly prevalent among older people. An early invasive treatment strategy may be effective and cost-effective for treating NSTEMI but evidence is currently unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of the early invasive strategy versus medical management in elderly patients with NSTEMI and to provide guidance for future research in this area.MethodsA long-term Markov state transition model was developed. Model inputs were systematically derived from a number of sources most appropriate to a UK relevant analysis, such as published studies and national routine data. Costs were estimated from the perspective of National Health Service and Personal Social Services. The model was developed using TreeAge Pro software. Based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a value of information analysis was carried out to establish the value of decision uncertainty both overall and for specific input parameters.ResultsIn 2017 UK £, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the early invasive strategy was £46 916 for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a probability of being cost-effective of 23% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/QALY. There was a considerable decision uncertainty with these results. The value of removing all this uncertainty was up to £1 920 000 annually. Most uncertainty related to clinical effectiveness parameters and the optimal study design to remove this uncertainty would be a randomised controlled trial.ConclusionBased on current evidence, the early invasive strategy is not likely to be cost-effective for elderly patients with NSTEMI. This conclusion should be interpreted with caution mainly due to the absence of NSTEMI-specific data and long-term clinical effectiveness estimates.

scholarly journals Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (68) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Avenell ◽  
Clare Robertson ◽  
Zoë Skea ◽  
Elisabet Jacobsen ◽  
Dwayne Boyers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Weight Regain ◽  
Severe Obesity ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Research Unit ◽  
Look Ahead ◽  
Obesity Trends

Background Adults with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 35 kg/m2] have an increased risk of comorbidities and psychological, social and economic consequences. Objectives Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Data sources Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched (last searched in May 2017). Review methods Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000–30,000. Results A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [–20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) –23.75 to –16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of –4.41 kg (95% CI –5.93 to –2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit. Limitations Reviewed studies often lacked generalisability to UK settings in terms of participants and resources for implementation, and usually lacked long-term follow-up (particularly for complications for surgery), leading to unrealistic weight regain assumptions. The views of potential and actual users of services were rarely reported to contribute to service design. This study may have failed to identify unpublished UK evaluations. Dual, blinded numerical data extraction was not undertaken. Conclusions Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends. Future work Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016040190. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

scholarly journals A comparative study of effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of olanzapine, risperidone and aripiprazole therapy in schizophrenia

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 786
Author(s):  
Pooja R. Kanani ◽  
Ajita Pillai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antipsychotic Drugs ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitalizations ◽  
Score Analysis ◽  
Risperidone Group

Background: Schizophrenia is the most common psychotic disorder and responsible for approximately half of long-term psychiatric hospitalizations. Antipsychotic medications reduce the psychotic symptoms and prevent relapses. The choice of drug for treatment of schizophrenia depends on many issues, including effectiveness, cost, side-effect burden, availability, and tolerability. Many studies have compared antipsychotic drugs with one another, but no broad consensus has been reached. Our study compares the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in our setting.Methods: This was an observational, prospective study in which schizophrenia patients receiving either olanzapine, risperidone or aripiprazole were enrolled. Patients were followed up for 3 months. Evaluation of effectiveness was done by analysing mean reduction in PANSS score. Analysis of ADRs was done using WHO causality scale and Hartwig and Siegel severity scale. Cost analysis was done by comparing all three groups in term of cost range of antipsychotic drugs per improvement in PANSS score during the study period.Results: In the present study, the average dose of antipsychotic drugs received by a patient per day was 8.83±2.98 mg in olanzapine group, 4.76±1.12 mg in risperidone group and 20.43±8.5 mg in aripiprazole group. Mean reduction in PANSS score from baseline to 12 weeks was 23.79% in olanzapine group, 25.41% in risperidone group and 24.65% in aripiprazole group. Conclusions: All the groups were equally effective in reduction in PANSS score while risperidone was the most cost effective.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised controlled Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea (TOMADO) and long-term economic analysis of oral devices and continuous positive airway pressure

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (67) ◽  
pp. 1-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Sharples ◽  
Matthew Glover ◽  
Abigail Clutterbuck-James ◽  
Maxine Bennett ◽  
Jake Jordan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnoea ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sleep Apnoea ◽  
Mandibular Advancement ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
Mandibular Advancement Devices

BackgroundObstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), impairs quality of life (QoL) and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment is clinically effective but undermined by intolerance, and its cost-effectiveness is borderline in milder cases. Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are another option, but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in milder disease.Objectives(1) Conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAH. (2) Update systematic reviews and an existing health economic decision model with data from the Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea–hypopnoea (TOMADO) and newly published results to better inform long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH.TOMADOA crossover RCT comparing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three MADs: self-moulded [SleepPro 1™ (SP1); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; semibespoke [SleepPro 2™ (SP2); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; and fully bespoke [bespoke MAD (bMAD); NHS Oral-Maxillofacial Laboratory, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, UK] against no treatment, in 90 adults with mild to moderate OSAH. All devices improved primary outcome [apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI)] compared with no treatment: relative risk 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.89] for SP1; relative risk 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) for SP2; and relative risk 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.76) for bMAD (p < 0.001). Differences between MADs were not significant. Sleepiness [as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] was scored 1.51 [95% CI 0.73 to 2.29 (SP1)] to 2.37 [95% CI 1.53 to 3.22 (bMAD)] lower than no treatment (p < 0.001), with SP2 and bMAD significantly better than SP1. All MADs improved disease-specific QoL. Compliance was lower for SP1, which was unpopular at trial exit. At 4 weeks, all devices were cost-effective at £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with SP2 the best value below £39,800/QALY.Meta-analysisA MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index search updating two existing systematic reviews (one from November 2006 and the other from June 2008) to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing MAD with conservative management (CM), MADs with CPAP or CPAP with CM. MADs and CPAP significantly improved AHI [MAD −9.3/hour (p < 0.001); CPAP −25.4/hour (p < 0.001)]. Effect difference between CPAP and MADs was 7.0/hour (p < 0.001), favouring CPAP. No trials compared CPAP with MADs in mild OSAH. MAD and CPAP reduced the ESS score similarly [MAD 1.6 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.6 (p < 0.001)].Long-term cost-effectivenessAn existing model assessed lifetime cost–utility of MAD and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH, using the revised meta-analysis to update input values. The TOMADO provided utility estimates, mapping ESS score to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version for device cost–utility. Using SP2 as the standard device, MADs produced higher mean costs and mean QALYs than CM [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £6687/QALY]. From a willingness to pay (WTP) of £15,367/QALY, CPAP is cost-effective, although the likelihood of MADs (p = 0.48) and CPAP (p = 0.49) being cost-effective is very similar. Both were better than CM, but there was much uncertainty in the choice between CPAP and MAD (at a WTP £20,000/QALY, the probability of being the most cost-effective was 47% for MAD and 52% for CPAP). When SP2 lifespan increased to 18 months, the ICER for CPAP compared with MAD became £44,066. The ICER for SP1 compared with CM was £1552, and for bMAD compared with CM the ICER was £13,836. The ICER for CPAP compared with SP1 was £89,182, but CPAP produced lower mean costs and higher mean QALYs than bMAD. Differential compliance rates for CPAP reduces cost-effectiveness so MADs become less costly and more clinically effective with CPAP compliance 90% of SP2.ConclusionsMandibular advancement devices are clinically effective and cost-effective in mild to moderate OSAH. A semi-bespoke MAD is the appropriate first choice in most patients in the short term. Future work should explore whether or not adjustable MADs give additional clinical and cost benefits. Further data on longer-term cardiovascular risk and its risk factors would reduce uncertainty in the health economic model and improve precision of effectiveness estimates.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN02309506.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Value of a Specialized Program for the Management of Oral Anticoagulation

1997 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 133-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Ansell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
International Normalized Ratio ◽  
The United States ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Anticoagulation Management ◽  
Self Testing

SummaryOral anticoagulation has proven to be an effective and useful therapy for over 50 years for patients at risk for thromboembolism, but recent evidence suggests that many patients are not only poorly managed, but therapy is withheld from a significant number of individuals because of the fear of complications and the labor intensiveness of treatment.Over the last decade several developments have occurred that may increase and improve the use of oral anticoagulation by effectively lowering the risk/benefit profile. Among these have been the standardization of the prothrombin time using the International Normalized Ratio leading to more appropriate and standardized therapy, and a number of consensus conferences in the United States and throughout the world focusing on indications for anticoagulation. Less has occurred in a coordinated fashion to substantially improve the management of oral anticoagulation until very recently. There is now accumulating evidence showing that a coordinated and focused approach to the management of therapy by specialized programs significantly improves clinical outcomes by improving therapeutic control, lessening the frequency of hemorrhage or thrombosis and decreasing the use of medical resources leading to more cost-effective therapy. Furthermore, with the development of new technologies for the measurement of prothrombin times (capillary whole blood PTs or point-of-care testing) allows for novel models of management including patient self-testing and patient self-management. These latter concepts are beginning to be popularized in several regions, especially Germany, Canada and the United States.The focus of the presentation will be to comment on the barriers to more effective and widespread use of anticoagulation and to summarize advances in the management of therapy including the concept of anticoagulation management services, patient self-testing and patient self-management.

scholarly journals Tele-health interventions to support self-management in adults with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison MacIver ◽  
Hannah Hollinger ◽  
Clare Carolan
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractRheumatoid arthritis (RA), a long-term auto-immune condition is a challenging condition for patients to manage. Goals of treatment include reducing pain, decreasing inflammation, and improving an individual’s overall function. Increasingly technology is being utilised to support patients to self-manage their condition. The aim of this systematic narrative review was to synthesise and critically appraise published evidence concerning the effectiveness of tele-health interventions to support self-management in RA. Bibliographic databases searched from 2014 to March 2020 included MedLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library. Search strategy combined the following concepts: (1) rheumatoid arthritis, (2) tele-health interventions, and (3) self-management. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with RA were included. Titles, abstracts, full-text articles were screened, any discrepancies were checked by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool and data were extracted utilising the Cochrane data collection form for RCT interventions along with the TiDier checklist. Due to high heterogeneity, results were not meta-analysed and instead data were synthesised narratively. The search identified 98 articles, seven were included. The completed RCTs varied in the nature of the interventions, duration/severity of RA, outcomes measured and effectiveness of the interventions. The completed RCTs included a total of 791 participants Disease duration was largely between 4 and 10 years and disease severity on average was moderate. There was extensive variation in intervention components, theories underpinning theories and outcomes measured. Five RCTs reported a positive effect on factors such as disease activity, medication adherence, physical activity and self-efficacy levels. This study suggests that tele-health interventions that are well-designed, tailored and multi-faceted can help to achieve positive self-management outcomes in RA. None of the studies showed evidence of harm.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a hybrid emergency room system for severe trauma: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the third-party payer in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Kinoshita ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Nao Hanaki ◽  
Tetsuhisa Kitamura ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Emergency Room ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Severe Trauma ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Third

Abstract Background Hybrid emergency room (ER) systems, consisting of an angiography-computed tomography (CT) machine in a trauma resuscitation room, are reported to be effective for reducing death from exsanguination in trauma patients. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid ER system in severe trauma patients without severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis comparing the hybrid ER system to the conventional ER system from the perspective of the third-party healthcare payer in Japan. A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model using a lifetime time horizon were constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and associated lifetime healthcare costs. Short-term mortality and healthcare costs were derived from medical records and claims data in a tertiary care hospital with a hybrid ER. Long-term mortality and utilities were extrapolated from the literature. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $47,619 per QALY gained and the discount rate was 2%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results The hybrid ER system was associated with a gain of 1.03 QALYs and an increment of $33,591 lifetime costs compared to the conventional ER system, resulting in an ICER of $32,522 per QALY gained. The ICER was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold if the odds ratio of 28-day mortality was < 0.66. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the hybrid ER system was cost-effective with a 79.3% probability. Conclusion The present study suggested that the hybrid ER system is a likely cost-effective strategy for treating severe trauma patients without severe TBI.

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of social transfers on human capital accumulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (207) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Mideros
Keyword(s):  
Human Capital ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Capital Accumulation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cash Transfers ◽  
Human Capital Accumulation ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Social Transfers

The paper reports on an ex-ante evaluation of the long-term effect of the Ecuadorian social transfer programme called “Bono de Desarrollo Humano (BDH)” on human capital accumulation. A dynamic cohort microsimulation model is used to analyse for cost-effectiveness of different policy scenarios. Results show that cash transfers do promotehuman capital accumulation but with rather small effect. Transfers targeted at critical ages are the most cost-effective to promote human capital accumulation

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing to Reduce Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care

Antibiotics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Holmes ◽  
Sharman Harris ◽  
Alison Hughes ◽  
Noel Craine ◽  
Dyfrig Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Respiratory Tract ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Antibiotic Prescription ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein

More appropriate and measured use of antibiotics may be achieved using point-of-care (POC) C-reactive protein (CRP) testing, but there is limited evidence of cost-effectiveness in routine practice. A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of testing, compared with standard care, in adults presenting in primary care with symptoms of acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). Analyses considered (1) pragmatic use of testing, reflective of routine clinical practice, and (2) testing according to clinical guidelines. Threshold and scenario analysis were performed to identify cost-effective scenarios. In patients with symptoms of ARTI and based on routine practice, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CRP testing were £19,705 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and £16.07 per antibiotic prescription avoided. Following clinical guideline, CRP testing in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) cost £4390 per QALY gained and £9.31 per antibiotic prescription avoided. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probabilities of POC CRP testing being cost-effective were 0.49 (ARTI) and 0.84 (LRTI). POC CRP testing as implemented in routine practice is appreciably less cost-effective than when adhering to clinical guidelines. The implications for antibiotic resistance and Clostridium difficile infection warrant further investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document