scholarly journals The Cost Effectiveness of Hand Held Ultrasound Scanning for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in Older Males with a History of Smoking

10.36469/9856 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 96-107
Author(s):  
Denver Phiri ◽  
Peter J. Mallow ◽  
John A. Rizzo
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Ultrasound Scanning ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Older Males

Objective: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a serious illness occurring in 1 of 20 older men. Guidelines emphasize the role of ultrasound scanning for patients at risk of AAA, yet the cost effectiveness of such scanning remains uncertain. New pocket mobile echocardiography (PME) devices may enhance the cost effectiveness of such scanning due to its low cost, ability to be used in primary care settings, and high degree of accuracy. This study performs cost utility analyses (CUAs) comparing opportunistic scanning for AAA using a PME to usual care for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 male smokers age 65+. Methods: The study compares the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for three alternative strategies over a 5-year time horizon. The study used a decision analytic simulation model to calculate the incremental cost utility for the different strategies. Three alternative criteria for surgical intervention were considered via scanning according to aneurysm size. These treatment strategies were compared to a control group that received no scanning. Model input values are taken from the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to gauge the robustness of the results. Results: Opportunistic scanning is cost effective. Indeed, when surgical intervention is limited to medium (5.0-5.4 cm) or large (≥5.5 cm) aneurysms, such scanning is dominant; that is, it costs less and increases QALYs compared to usual care. When surgical intervention is extended to small (4.0-4.9 cm) aneurysms, scanning remains cost effective ($64,156 per QALY vs. $100,000 threshold). The results are robust to alternative plausible model input values. Conclusion: These findings suggest that primary care physicians with proper training should consider PMEs as a cost effective method to opportunistically scan and manage AAA patients among older males who have a history of smoking.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of computerized cognitive–behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: findings from the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Duarte ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
E. Littlewood ◽  
S. Brabyn ◽  
C. Hewitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Gp Care ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundComputerized cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care.MethodCosts were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.ResultsNeither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant).ConclusionsTechnically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.

scholarly journals The Stroke Prevention Programme: a programme of research to inform optimal stroke prevention in primary care

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-290
Author(s):  
Kate Fletcher ◽  
Jonathan Mant ◽  
Richard McManus ◽  
Richard Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
History Of ◽  
General Practices

BackgroundThe management of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in community populations is suboptimal. The aim of this programme was to explore the role of three approaches [use of a ‘polypill’; self-management of hypertension; and more intensive targets for blood pressure (BP) lowering after stroke] to improve prevention of CV disease (CVD) in the community.Research questions(1) Is it more cost-effective to titrate treatments to target levels of cholesterol and BP or to use fixed doses of statins and BP-lowering agents (polypill strategy)? (2) Will telemonitoring and self-management improve BP control in people on treatment for hypertension or with a history of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) in primary care and are they cost-effective? (3) In people with a history of stroke/TIA, can intensive BP-lowering targets be achieved in a primary care setting and what impact will this have on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness?DesignMixed methods, comprising three randomised controlled trials (RCTs); five cost-effectiveness analyses; qualitative studies; analysis of electronic general practice data; a screening study; a systematic review; and a questionnaire study.SettingUK general practices, predominantly from the West Midlands and the east of England.ParticipantsAdults registered with participating general practices. Inclusion criteria varied from study to study.InterventionsA polypill – a fixed-dose combination pill containing three antihypertensive medicines and simvastatin – compared with current practice and with optimal implementation of national guidelines; self-monitoring of BP with self-titration of medication, compared with usual care; and an intensive target for systolic BP of < 130 mmHg or a 10 mmHg reduction if baseline BP is < 140 mmHg, compared with a target of < 140 mmHg.ResultsFor patients known to be at high risk of CVD, treatment as per guidelines was the most cost-effective strategy. For people with unknown CV risk aged ≥ 50 years, offering a polypill is cost-effective [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8115 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] compared with a strategy of screening and treating according to national guidelines. Both results were sensitive to the cost of the polypill. Self-management in people with uncontrolled hypertension led to a 5.4 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 8.5 mmHg] reduction in systolic BP at 1 year, compared with usual care. It was cost-effective for men (ICER of £1624 per QALY) and women (ICER of £4923 per QALY). In people with stroke and other high-risk groups, self-management led to a 9.2 mmHg (95% CI 5.7 to 12.7 mmHg) reduction in systolic BP at 1 year compared with usual care and dominated (lower cost and better outcome) usual care. Aiming for the more intensive BP target after stroke led to a 2.9 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 5.7 mmHg) greater reduction in BP and dominated the 140 mmHg target.ConclusionsPotential for a polypill needs to be further explored in RCTs. Self-management should be offered to people with poorly controlled BP. Management of BP in the post-stroke population should focus on achieving a < 140 mmHg target.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17585681, ISRCTN87171227 and ISRCTN29062286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. Additional funding was provided by the NIHR National School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Career Development Fellowship and the Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

scholarly journals Exploring the cost-effectiveness of a Dutch collaborative stepped care intervention for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety when adapted to the Australian context: a model-based cost-utility analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Y. Lee ◽  
M. G. Harris ◽  
H. A. Whiteford ◽  
S. K. Davidson ◽  
M. L. Chatterton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Australian Context ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings. Method A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings. Result The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Conclusions This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of different methods of treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy in the south of Iran

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahia Namavar Jahromi ◽  
Elahe esmaili ◽  
Mozhgan Fardid ◽  
Jafari Abdosaleh ◽  
Zahra Kavosi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Double Dose ◽  
Tubal Ectopic Pregnancy ◽  
Dose Methotrexate ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Ectopic pregnancy is one of the most important causes of maternal mortality and infertility that may impose many costs on patients. Today, Surgery and pharmaceutical treatments are the common methods of treating the disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different methods of treating tubal ectopic pregnancy in the south of Iran.Methods: This study was an economic evaluation which analysed and compared the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of three treatment methods, including single-dose methotrexate, double-dose methotrexate, and surgery in patients with tubal ectopic pregnancy. In this study, a decision tree model was used. The outcomes included in the model were the percentage of successful treatment and the average utility score of each treatment method. The study was conducted from the social perspective and a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to measure the effects of uncertainty. The analysis of the collected data was performed using Excel and TreeAge software.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the surgery versus single-dose methotrexate was positive and equal to $5812 PPP; since it was less than the threshold, surgery was considered as a cost-effective method. The incremental cost-utility ratio also identified surgery as the best option. Moreover, the results of one-way showed the highest sensitivity to the effectiveness of single-dose methotrexate. Scatter plots also revealed that surgery in 82% and 96% of simulations was at the acceptable region compared with a single dose and double-dose methotrexate, respectively and below the threshold. It was identified as a more cost-effective strategy. Furthermore, the acceptability curves showed that in 81.4% of simulations, surgery was the most cost-effective treatment for thresholds less than 21011 PPP dollars.Conclusions: Based on the results of the present study, it is recommended that surgery can be used as the first line of treatment for ectopic. Also, the best drug strategy was single-dose methotrexate. Since these strategies reduce costs and increase treatment success and QALYs compared to double-dose methotrexate.

scholarly journals Cost-utility Analysis of Trabecular Micro-bypass Stents (TBS) in Patients With Mild-to-moderate Open-angle Glaucoma in Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Maria Fea ◽  
Francesco Cattel ◽  
Stefano Gandolfi ◽  
Giorgio Buseghin ◽  
Gianluca Furneri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Istent Inject ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundGlaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. ResultsResults of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8,368.51 vs. €7,134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The acceptability curve of cost-effectiveness (CEAC) analysis showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective. Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals The (cost-)effectiveness and cost-utility of a novel integrative care initiative for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: the pragmatic trial protocol of Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Lamper ◽  
Ivan PJ Huijnen ◽  
Mariëlle EJB Goossens ◽  
Bjorn Winkens ◽  
Dirk Ruwaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Local Networks ◽  
Quadruple Aim ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background: Rehabilitation care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is not optimally organized. The Network Pain Rehabilitation Limburg 2.0 (NPRL2.0) provides integrated care with a biopsychosocial approach and strives to improve the Quadruple Aim outcomes: pain-related disability of patients with CMP; experiences of care of patients with CMP; meaning in the work of healthcare professionals; and healthcare costs. Firstly, in this study, the effectiveness (with regard to the functioning and participation of patients) of primary care for patients with CMP will be assessed, comparing care organized following the NPRL2.0 procedure with usual care. Secondly, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility with regard to health-related quality of life and healthcare costs will be assessed. And thirdly, the effect of duration of participation in a local network in primary care will be studied. Methods: In this pragmatic study, it is expected that two local networks with 105 patients will participate in the prospective cohort study and six local networks with 184 patients in the stepped-wedge based design. Healthcare professionals in the local networks will recruit patients. Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years; having CMP; willing to improve functioning despite pain; and adequate Dutch literacy. Exclusion criteria: pregnancy; and having a treatable medical or psychiatric disease. Patients will complete questionnaires at baseline (T1), 3 months (T2), 6 months (T3), and 9 months (T4). Questionnaires at T1 and T4 will include the Pain Disability Index and Short Form Health Survey. Questionnaires at T1, T2, T3, and T4 will include the EQ-5D-5L, and iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires. Outcomes will be compared using linear mixed-model analysis and costs will be compared using bootstrapping methods. Discussion: NPRL2.0 is a multidimensional, complex intervention, executed in daily practice, and therefore needing a pragmatic study design. The current study will assess NPRL2.0 with respect to the Quadruple Aim outcomes: patient health and costs. This will provide more information on the (cost-) effectiveness of the organization of care in a network structure regarding patients with CMP. The other two Quadruple Aim outcomes will be examined alongside this study. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register: NL7643

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with coronary heart disease, chronic heart failure and associated risk factors: A systematic review of economic evaluations of randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 1045-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Oldridge ◽  
Rod S Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Intermittent Claudication ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
The Cost

Aims Prescribed exercise is effective in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic heart failure (CHF), intermittent claudication, body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, hypertension or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the evidence for its cost-effectiveness is limited, shows large variations and is partly contradictory. Using World Health Organization and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology value for money thresholds, we report the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy, exercise training and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation. Methods Electronic databases were searched for incremental cost-effectiveness and incremental cost–utility ratios and/or the probability of cost-effectiveness of exercise prescribed as therapy in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 July 2008 and 28 October 2018. Results Of 19 incremental cost–utility ratios reported in 15 RCTs in patients with CHD, CHF, intermittent claudication or BMI ≥25 kg/m2, 63% met both value for money thresholds as ‘highly cost-effective’ or ‘high value’, with 26% ‘not cost-effective’ or of ‘low value’. The probability of intervention cost-effectiveness ranged from 23 to 100%, probably due to the different populations, interventions and comparators reported in the individual RCTs. Confirmation with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting checklist varied widely across the included studies. Conclusions The findings of this review support the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with CHD, CHF, BMI ≥25 kg/m2 or intermittent claudication, but, with concerns about reporting standards, need further confirmation. No eligible economic evaluation based on RCTs was identified in patients with hypertension or T2DM.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with colony-simulating factor (CSF) when compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma undergoing curative chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6558-6558
Author(s):  
K. K. Chan ◽  
K. R. Imrie ◽  
S. M. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

6558 Background: The 2006 ASCO guideline recommends PP with CSF for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, partially based on previous cost-minimization analyses showing that CSF saved costs when compared with no CSF by reducing hospitalization from febrile neutropenia (FN) when the risk of FN was > 20%. However, these studies examined only one cycle of chemotherapy and did not account for costs of CSF in subsequent cycles, did not consider SP, and did not consider patients’ preferences. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP with SP in this setting using a Markov model for a time horizon of 8 cycles of chemotherapy with a government payer perspective. Costs were adjusted to 2006 $CAD. Ontario health economic data were used. The cost of hospitalization for FN was obtained from Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Data for efficacies of CSF, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: The base case costs for PP and SP were $22,077 and $17,641. The QALYs of PP and SP were 0.254 and 0.248. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $739,999/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that in order for PP to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization per episode of FN had to be > $31,138 (i.e. 2.5 times > base case), the cost of CSF per cycle had to be < $896 (base case = $1,960), the risk of FN in the 1st cycle had to be > 48% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with CSF had to be > 97% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all other cost, probability and utility variables. First order microsimulation showed that < 17% of simulations were cost-effective. Conclusions: PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP for this population under most assumptions. PP only becomes attractive in places where the cost of hospitalization for FN is much more than that of Ontario, or the cost of CSF is under $896 per cycle. The costs of CSF and hospitalization in all cycles (instead of just one cycle) should be accounted for in any economic evaluation of CSF. Current guidelines recommending PP in this population should be revisited. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Recombinant Factor VIIa (rFVIIa) and Activated Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (aPCC) in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Bleeding Episodes for Haemophilia Patients with Inhibitors

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 4678-4678
Author(s):  
Chris Knight ◽  
Anne Møller Danø ◽  
Tessa Kennedy-Martin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Factor Viia ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Modelling Framework ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objectives: Although haemophilia patients with inhibitors are rare, the clinical, humanistic and economic consequences associated with this disorder are considerable. The primary treatment for such patients is either rFVIIa or aPCC. The aim of this study was to identify, review and evaluate the quality of the published literature on the relative cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa and aPCC in treating haemophilia patients with inhibitors. Methods: The review concentrates on the model type, the model design, model assumptions, and results. Results: The results of this study suggest that rFVIIa may be the cost-effective alternative to treatment with aPCC due to the superior efficacy of rFVIIa and hence the avoidance of subsequent lines of treatment. In 7 of the 9 studies, rFVIIa had the lower average treatment cost. The adapted modelling framework is similar in all the economic models reviewed, suggesting clinical acceptability of the approach used. The estimates of efficacy varied between the models, especially for aPCC. The efficacy for aPCC derived from retrospective studies was lower than reported in the literature. Sensitivity analysis had been undertaken in the majority of the economic analyses and the results were found to be robust to realistic parameter variations. Only one of the studies was a cost-utility study, showing the lack of measuring health status within this area. The results showed the large impact appropriate treatment can have on the quality of life for haemophilia patients with inhibitors. Conclusions: Ideally, there should be a systematic approach to identifying the relevant data and the lack of data from relevant randomized head-to-head trials is a contributing factor to the variation in efficacy rates and average dosages assumed. However, this systematic review has shown that despite differences in the estimates of efficacy, average dosage required, and unit costs the overall results are robust and appear to favour rFVIIa as the cost-effectiveness treatment for haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document