scholarly journals Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (25) ◽  
pp. 1-166
Author(s):  
Gavin D Perkins ◽  
Chen Ji ◽  
Felix Achana ◽  
John JM Black ◽  
Karl Charlton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Neurological Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. Design This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. Setting This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. Participants Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. Interventions Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. Results From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. Limitations The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. Conclusions Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. Future work Further research is required to better understand patients’ preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Association Between Neurological Outcomes and Extreme Hyperoxia in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Who Underwent Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Retrospective Observational Study from a Multicenter Registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kashiura ◽  
Hideto Yasuda ◽  
Yuki Kishihara ◽  
Keiichiro Tominaga ◽  
Masaaki Nishihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Neurological Outcomes ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Abstract Background: To investigate the impact of hyperoxia that developed immediately after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) on patients’ 30-day neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Japanese OHCA registry from June 2014 to December 2017. We analyzed adult patients (18 years or older) who had undergone ECPR. Eligible patients were divided into the following three groups based on their initial partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) levels after ECMO pump-on: normoxia group, PaO2 ≤ 200 mm Hg; moderate hyperoxia group, 200 mm Hg < PaO2 ≤ 400 mm Hg; and extreme hyperoxia group, PaO2 > 400 mm Hg. The primary and secondary outcomes were 30-day favorable neurological outcomes. Logistic regression statistical analysis model of 30-day favorable neurological outcomes was performed after adjusting for multiple propensity scores calculated using pre-ECPR covariates and for confounding factors post-ECPR.Results: Of the 34 754 patients with OHCA enrolled in the registry, 847 were included. The median PaO2 level was 300 mm Hg (interquartile range: 148–427 mm Hg). Among the eligible patients, 277, 313, and 257 were categorized as normoxic, moderately hyperoxic, and extremely hyperoxic, respectively. Moderate hyperoxia was not significantly associated with neurologically favorable outcomes compared with normoxia as a reference (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.55–1.35; p = 0.51). However, extreme hyperoxia was associated with less neurologically favorable outcomes when compared with normoxia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.29–0.82; p = 0.007).Conclusions: For patients with OHCA who received ECPR, extreme hyperoxia (PaO2 > 400 mm Hg) was associated with poor neurological outcomes. Avoidance of extreme hyperoxia may improve neurological outcomes in patients with OHCA treated with ECPR.

P2666Association of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurrence time and the survival in all-Japan utstein registry: difference between international resuscitation guidelines 2005 and 2010

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Kato ◽  
T Otsuka ◽  
Y Seino ◽  
Y Tahara ◽  
N Yonemoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Neurological Outcome ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Cerebral Performance Category ◽  
Resuscitation Guidelines ◽  
Favorable Neurological Outcome ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Abstract Background/Introduction Previous studies have shown that out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) occurring at night have poor outcomes compared with OHCA occurring during daytime. On the other hand, nationwide OHCA outcomes have gradually improved in Japan. Purpose We sought to examine whether one-month survival of OHCA differed between daytime and nighttime occurrences, and they differed between the periods of International Resuscitation Guidelines 2005 and 2010. Methods Using the All-Japan Utstein Registry between 2005 and 2015, adult OHCA patients whose collapse was witnessed by a bystander and the call-to-hospital admission interval was shorter than 120 min were included in this study. OHCA patients were divided by period of the International Resuscitation Guideline 2005 and 2010. Guideline 2005 included years from 2006 to 2010, while Guideline 2010 included years from 2011 to 2015. The primary outcome was one-month survival with favorable neurological outcome, defined as Cerebral Performance Category scale of 1 or 2. Daytime, evening, and night were defined as 0700 to 1459 h, 1500 to 2259 h, and 2300 to 0659 h, respectively. Results Among 479,046 cases, 20.3% revealed OHCA occurring at night. OHCA patients occurring at night had lower rate of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and automated external defibrillator use than those occurring at both daytime and evening. In addition, of those who received bystander CPR, higher rate of patients received CPR by family members. OHCA patients occurring at night in both guideline periods had significantly worse one-month survival than those occurring during daytime (reference) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69, 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.65–0.72, 0.61–0.67; P<0.001, P<0.001, Guideline 2005 and 2010 respectively). OHCA patients occurring during daytime in Guideline 2010 had better one-month survival than those in Guideline 2005 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval 1.24–1.34; P<0.001). Conclusions One-month survival with favorable neurological outcome in OHCA patients occurring at night remains to be significantly worse than those occurring during daytime, even improved by the periods during daytime. CPR training for the family members should be more expanded and strengthened against the night time imperfection.

scholarly journals Effect of serum albumin level on hospital outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 293-299
Author(s):  
Hanna Yoon ◽  
Kyoung Jun Song ◽  
Sang Do Shin ◽  
Young Sun Ro ◽  
Ki Jeong Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Serum Albumin ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Serum Albumin Level ◽  
Albumin Level ◽  
Neurological Recovery ◽  
Epidemiologic Surveillance ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background: Background: Serum albumin has been known as a strong predictive value of mortality in various disease conditions, severe burns, major surgeries, stroke, myocardial infarction, etc. But little is known for the effect of serum albumin level on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of serum albumin level on the outcome of out of hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: This study was a prospective hospital-based patient cohort study, conducted during January to December 2014 at 27 emergency departments in Cardiac Arrest Pursuit Trial with Unique Registration and Epidemiologic Surveillance project. The albumin was measured immediately after arrival to the emergency department during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and albumin was categorized into two groups, group < 3.5 g/dL group and ⩾ 3.5 g/dL group. The primary outcome was a good neurological recovery at discharge (cerebral performance category scale 1 or 2). Multivariable logistic regression was used for adjusting for confounders. Results: During the study period, 1616 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with presumed cardiac etiology were enrolled, and the total of 1013 patients were analyzed in this study. A total 452 (44.6%) patients had serum albumin level less than 3.5 g/dL. The serum albumin ⩾ 3.5 g/dL group showed better neurological outcomes than the serum albumin < 3.5 g/dL group: 18.5% versus 4.0%, and ⩾ 3.5 g/dL group had higher survival discharge rates than the < 3.5 g/dL group: 23.9% versus 9.1% (p < 0.01). After adjusting for potential covariates, patients with serum albumin ⩾ 3.5 g/dL had a higher odds of good neurological recovery (adjusted odds ratio: 2.94 (95% confidence interval: [1.57, 5.49])), and higher survival to discharge (adjusted odds ratio: 1.74 (95% confidence interval: [1.10, 2.76])). Conclusion: Low serum albumin levels are associated with a worse neurologic outcome in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Abstract 588: Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Induction of Hypothermia in Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ken Nagao ◽  
Kimio Kikushima ◽  
Kazuhiro Watanabe ◽  
Eizo Tachibana ◽  
Takaeo Mukouyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Neurological Outcome ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Hypothermia Group ◽  
Favorable Neurological Outcome ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Therapeutic hypothermia is beneficial to neurological outcome for comatose survivors after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, there are few data of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for induction of hypothermia for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We did a prospective study of ECPR with hypothermia for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The criteria for inclusion were an age of 18 to 74 years, a witnessed cardiac arrest, collapse-to-patient’s-side interval <15 minutes, cardiac arrest due to presumed cardiac etiology, and persistent cardiac arrest on ER arrival in spite of the prehospital defibrillations. After arrival at the emergency room, cardiopulmonary bypass plus intra-aortic balloon pumping was immediately performed, and then coronary reperfusion therapy during cardiac arrest was added if needed. Mild hypothermia (34°C for 3 days) was immediately induced during cardiac arrest or after return of spontaneous circulation. We selected suitable patients who received conventional CPR with normothermia among a prospective multi-center observational study of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Kanto region of Japan “the SOS-KANTO study” for the control group. The primary endpoint was favorable neurological outcome at the time of hospital discharge. A total of 558 patients were enrolled; 127 received ECPR with hypothermia and 431 received conventional CPR with normothermia. The ECPR with hypothermia group had significantly higher frequency of the favorable neurological outcome than the conventional CPR with normothermia group (12% vs. 2%, unadjusted odds ratio, 8.1; 95% CI; 3.2 to 20.0). The adjusted odds ratio for the favorable neurological outcome after ECPR with hypothermia was 7.4 (95% CI; 2.8 to 19.3, p<0.0001). Among the ECPR with hypothermia group, early attainment of a target core temperature of 34°C increased its efficacy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI; 0.98 to 1.00, p=0.04). ECPR with hypothermia improved the chance of neurologically intact survival for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and the early attainment of a target temperature enhanced its efficacy.

Abstract 25: Cost-Effectiveness of Public Automated External Defibrillators

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars W Andersen ◽  
Mathias J Holmberg ◽  
Asger Granfeldt ◽  
Lyndon P James ◽  
Lisa Caulley
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Automated External Defibrillators ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

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.

scholarly journals Early Post-Rewarming Fever Is Associated with Favorable 6-Month Neurologic Outcomes in Patients with Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Multicenter Registry Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2927
Author(s):  
Hyoung Youn Lee ◽  
Dong Hun Lee ◽  
Byung Kook Lee ◽  
Kyung Woon Jeung ◽  
Yong Hun Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Temperature Management ◽  
Registry Study ◽  
Neurologic Outcomes ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Multicenter Registry

We investigated the association between post-rewarming fever (PRF) and 6-month neurologic outcomes in cardiac arrest survivors. This was a multicenter study based on a registry of comatose adult (³ 18years) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors who underwent targeted temperature management between October 2015 to December 2018. PRF was defined as peak temperature ≥ 38.0 °C within 72 h after completion of rewarming, and PRF timing was categorized as within 24, 24–48, and 48–72 h epochs. The primary outcome was neurologic outcomes at six months after cardiac arrest. Unfavorable neurologic outcome was defined as cerebral performance categories three to five. A total of 1031 patients were included, and 642 (62.3%) had unfavorable neurologic outcomes. PRF developed in 389 (37.7%) patients in 72 h after rewarming: within 24 h in 150 (38.6%), in 24–48 h in 155 (39.8%), and in 48–72 h in 84 (21.6%). PRF was associated with improved neurologic outcomes (odds ratio (OR), 0.633; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.416–0.963). PRF within 24 h (OR, 0.355; 95% CI, 0.191–0.659), but not in 24–48 h or 48–72 h, was associated with unfavorable neurologic outcomes. Early PRF within 24 h after rewarming was associated with favorable neurologic outcomes.

scholarly journals Comparative clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 865-877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maobai Liu ◽  
Shuli Qu ◽  
Yanjun Liu ◽  
Xingxing Yao ◽  
Wei Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Clinical Effects ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Androgen Blockade

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost–effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Prophylaxis with Pegfilgrastim Versus Filgrastim in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Patients Receiving CHOP-21.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 5166-5166 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Kim ◽  
Jennifer L. Malin ◽  
Quan V. Doan ◽  
Zhimei Liu ◽  
Robert W. Dubois ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Hodgkin’S Lymphoma ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
Non Hodgkin’S Lymphoma ◽  
Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) starting in the first and continuing in subsequent chemotherapy cycles when the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is ≥20% is recommended in the 2006 ASCO and EORTC clinical guidelines. Although the daily G-CSF filgrastim (Neupogen®, Amgen Inc.) and the long-acting G-CSF pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®, Amgen Inc.) are both commonly used, in practice filgrastim is often administered for shorter-than-recommended courses, eg, 6 days, which has been shown to be associated with less clinical efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) receiving CHOP-21. Without G-CSF support, CHOP-21 is associated with 17%-50% FN risk. We constructed a decision-analytic model from a payer perspective with a life-time study horizon. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including cost per FN event avoided, cost per life-year-gained (LYG), or cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) saved. Model inputs including FN risk, FN case-fatality, relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy, impact of RDI on survival, and utility scores were obtained from a comprehensive literature review. Drug and drug administration costs were obtained from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Cost for FN-related hospitalizations and subsequent medical costs were obtained from the literature. NHL mortality rates and other-cause mortality were based on data from US Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results and National Vital Statistics Reports. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key variables. Our model simulated 3 clinical scenarios: Scenario 1 included the impact of prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim or filgrastim on FN risk, Scenario 2 included the impact of a difference in FN risk on FN-related mortality, and Scenario 3 included a differential impact on RDI and long-term survival. Extrapolating from the results of a meta-analysis and observational studies, it was estimated that pegfilgrastim decreased the absolute risk of FN by 12% compared with 6-day filgrastim (13.1% versus 25.1%) for a baseline FN risk of approximately 27.9%. Our results showed that compared with 6-day filgrastim, pegfilgrastim was associated with an ICER of $2,133/FN event avoided in Scenario 1, $4,869/LYG or $5,476/QALY saved in Scenario 2, and $1,805/LYG or $2,029/QALY saved in Scenario 3 (Table 1). Key factors influencing ICER estimates included relative risk of FN, cost of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, and baseline FN risk. Varying these variables within plausible ranges, the ICERs did not exceed $100,000/QALY saved, a commonly cited threshold for judging cost-effectiveness in oncology. Our study suggested that primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared with filgrastim used for 6 days in NHL patients receiving CHOP-21. Table 1: Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim Cost ($) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (LY) Scenario 2 (QALY) Scenario 3 (LY) Scenario 3 (QALY) ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; LY, life-year; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; numbers may not match due to rounding errors Pegfilgrastim 15,608 13.1% 9.35 8.13 8.09 7.01 Filgrastim 15,352 25.1% 9.29 8.08 7.95 6.89 ICER --- $2,133 per FN event avoided $4,869/LY $5,476/QALY $1,805/LY $2,029/QALY

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: Myth or reality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Alain Frossard ◽  
Gregory Merlo ◽  
Brendan Burkett ◽  
Tanya Quincey ◽  
Debra Berg
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Limb Bone ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background: In principle, lower limb bone-anchored prostheses could alleviate expenditure associated with typical socket manufacturing and residuum treatments due to socket-suspended prostheses. Objective: This study reports (a) the incremental costs and (b) heath gain as well as (c) cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket-suspended prostheses. Study design: Retrospective individual case-controlled observations and systematic review. Methods: Actual costs were extracted from financial records and completed by typical costs when needed over 6-year time horizon for a cohort of 16 individuals. Health gains corresponding to quality-adjusted life-year were calculated using health-related quality-of-life data presented in the literature. Results: The provision of bone-anchored prostheses costed 21% ± 41% more but increased quality-adjusted life-years by 17% ± 5% compared to socket-suspended prostheses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged between –$25,700 per quality-adjusted life-year and $53,500 per quality-adjusted life-year with indicative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $17,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Bone-anchored prosthesis was cost-saving and cost-effective for 19% and 88% of the participants, respectively. Conclusion: This study indicated that bone-anchored prostheses might be an acceptable alternative to socket-suspended prostheses at least from a prosthetic care perspective in Australian context. Altogether, this initial evidence-based economic evaluation provided a working approach for decision makers responsible for policies around care of individuals with lower limb amputation worldwide. Clinical relevance For the first time, this study provided evidence-based health economic benefits of lower limb bone-anchored prostheses compared to typical socket-suspended prostheses from a prosthetic care perspective that is essential to clinicians and decision makers responsible for policies.

scholarly journals Prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (30) ◽  
pp. 1-116
Author(s):  
Juliet Hounsome ◽  
Gerlinde Pilkington ◽  
James Mahon ◽  
Angela Boland ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Group Model ◽  
Third Molars ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Impacted Mandibular Third Molars ◽  
Mandibular Third Molars ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background Impacted third molars are third molars that are blocked, by soft tissue or bone, from fully erupting through the gum. This can cause pain and disease. The treatment options for people with impacted third molars are removal or retention with standard care. If there are pathological changes, the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states that the impacted third molar should be removed. Objective The objective of this study was to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars compared with retention of, and standard care for, impacted third molars. Methods Five electronic databases were searched (1999 to 29 April 2016) to identify relevant evidence [The Cochrane Library (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), MEDLINE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EMBASE (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016), EconLit (searched 4 April 2016 and 29 April 2016) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (searched 4 April 2016)]. Studies that compared the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care or studies that assessed the outcomes from either approach were included. The clinical outcomes considered were pathology associated with retention, post-operative complications following extraction and adverse effects of treatment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes included UK costs and health-related quality-of-life measures. In addition, the assessment group constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic removal strategy with that of retention and standard care. Results The clinical review identified four cohort studies and nine systematic reviews. In the two studies that reported on surgical complications, no serious complications were reported. Pathological changes due to retention of asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars were reported by three studies. In these studies, the extraction rate for retained impacted mandibular third molars varied from 5.5% to 31.4%; this variation can be explained by the differing follow-up periods (i.e. 1 and 5 years). The findings from this review are consistent with the findings from previous systematic reviews. Two published cost-effectiveness studies were identified. The authors of both studies concluded that, to their knowledge, there is currently no economic evidence to support the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars. The results generated by the assessment group’s lifetime economic model indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained for the comparison of a prophylactic removal strategy with a retention and standard care strategy is £11,741 for people aged 20 years with asymptomatic impacted mandibular third molars. The incremental cost per person associated with prophylactic extraction is £55.71, with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.005 per person. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained was found to be robust when a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out. Limitations Limitations of the study included that no head-to-head trials comparing the effectiveness of prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care were identified with the assessment group model that was built on observational data. Utility data on impacted mandibular third molars and their symptoms are lacking. Conclusions The evidence comparing the prophylactic removal of impacted mandibular third molars with retention and standard care is very limited. However, the results from an exploratory assessment group model, which uses available evidence on symptom development and extraction rates of retained impacted mandibular third molars, suggest that prophylactic removal may be the more cost-effective strategy. Future work Effectiveness evidence is lacking. Head-to-head trials comparing the prophylactic removal of trouble-free impacted mandibular third molars with retention and watchful waiting are required. If this is not possible, routine clinical data, using common definitions and outcome reporting methods, should be collected. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037776. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document