Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Antipsychotic Medications in the Management of Schizophrenia in Benin City

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-56
Author(s):  
J.W. Edefo ◽  
◽  
S.F. Usifoh ◽  
A.W. Udezi ◽  
◽  
...  

Background: Studies on cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in the management of schizophrenia are still lacking in Nigeria thus the objectives of this study are to determine which of the class of antipsychotics is more cost-effective as well as the impact of socio-demographic factors on the response rate to antipsychotics. Method: The effectiveness was measured by Brief Psychiatric rating scale (BPRS) and costs were in Nigerian naira (NGN). The impact of different socio-demographics on the mean BPRScore ± Standard deviation (SD) reduction was determined. The study was conducted from patient’s perspective with decision tree analysis model using two-way sensitivity analysis. The model was used to explore incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) of oral antipsychotic medications Haloperidol /Trifluoperazine versus Olanzepine /Risperidone over a 24-week study period. Results: Cost effectiveness analysis with 1st scenario sensitivity test of medications, trifluoperazine 17.81±2.51mg is more cost effective than olanzapine 10mg, while haloperidol 10mg is more cost effective than risperidone 3.5± 0.51mg. In the second scenario of sensitivity analysis, olanzapine is more cost effective than trifluoperazine only when the savings of making one person free from schizophrenia in a month is worth more than NGN537 while risperidone is more cost effective than haloperidol only when the savings of making one person free from schizophrenia in a month is worth more than NGN2524.1. The effect on response rate to antipsychotics gave p=0.0251, P=0.009, P<0.0001 for educational status, income, stable relationship respectively. Conclusion: Atypical antipsychotic medications are not more cost effective compared to the typical antipsychotics. Higher educational level, income and stable relationship positively affected the outcome of effectiveness of antipsychotics.

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
JaHyun Kang ◽  
Paul Mandsager ◽  
Andrea K. Biddle ◽  
David J. Weber

Objective.To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 alternative active screening strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): universal surveillance screening for all hospital admissions, targeted surveillance screening for intensive care unit admissions, and no surveillance screening.Design.Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling.Methods.Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of an 800-bed academic hospital with 40,000 annual admissions over the time horizon of a hospitalization. All input probabilities, costs, and outcome data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Effectiveness outcome was MRSA healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results.In the base case, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy (ie, was associated with lower costs and resulted in better outcomes) for preventing MRSA HAL Universal surveillance screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,955 per MRSA HAL In one-way sensitivity analysis, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy across most parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that targeted surveillance screening was the most cost-effective strategy when willingness to pay to prevent a case of MRSA HAI was less than $71,300.Conclusion.Targeted active surveillance screening for MRSA is the most cost-effective screening strategy in an academic hospital setting. Additional studies that are based on actual hospital data are needed to validate this model. However, the model supports current recommendations to use active surveillance to detect MRSA.


1997 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggi L. del Valle ◽  
Hal Morgenstern ◽  
Teresa L. Rogstad ◽  
Carol Albright ◽  
Barbara G. Vickrey

Antibiotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 259
Author(s):  
Costanza Vicentini ◽  
Maria Michela Gianino ◽  
Alessio Corradi ◽  
Noemi Marengo ◽  
Valerio Bordino ◽  
...  

Standard surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) regimens are less effective in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) due to rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates, particularly for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether ertapenem should be a preferred strategy for the prevention of SSIs following elective colorectal surgery compared to three standard SAP regimens: amoxicillin-clavulanate, cefoxitin, and cefazolin plus metronidazole. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using decision tree models. Probabilities of SSIs and AMR-SSIs, costs, and effects (in terms of quality-adjusted life-years) were considered in the assessment of the alternative strategies. Input parameters integrated real data from the Italian surveillance system for SSIs with data from the published literature. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the potential impact of the decreasing efficacy of standard SAP regimens in preventing SSIs. According to our models, ertapenem was the most cost-effective strategy only when compared to amoxicillin-clavulanate, but it did not prove to be superior to cefoxitin and cefazolin plus metronidazole. The sensitivity analysis found ertapenem would be the most cost-effective strategy compared to these agents if their failure rate was more than doubled. The findings of this study suggest ertapenem should not be a preferred strategy for SAP in elective colorectal surgery.


2013 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee Romeo ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
Jennifer Hellier ◽  
Michael Dewey ◽  
Clive Ballard ◽  
...  

BackgroundDepression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia.MethodA pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0–13 weeks and 0–39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods.ResultsThere were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively.ConclusionsIn terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.


2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 1552-1562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Mezones-Holguín ◽  
Rafael Bolaños-Díaz ◽  
Víctor Fiestas ◽  
César Sanabria ◽  
Alfonso Gutiérrez-Aguado ◽  
...  

Introduction: Pneumococcal pneumonia (PP) has a high burden of morbimortality in children. Use of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) is an effective preventive measure. After PCV 7-valent (PCV7) withdrawal, PCV 10-valent (PCV10) and PCV 13-valent (PCV13) are the alternatives in Peru. This study aimed to evaluate cost effectiveness of these vaccines in preventing PP in Peruvian children <5 years-old. Methodology: A cost-effectiveness analysis was developed in three phases: a systematic evidence search for calculating effectiveness; a cost analysis for vaccine strategies and outcome management; and an economic model based on decision tree analysis, including deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using acceptability curves, tornado diagram, and Monte Carlo simulation. A hypothetic 100 vaccinated children/vaccine cohort was built. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Results: The isolation probability for all serotypes in each vaccine was estimated: 38% for PCV7, 41% PCV10, and 17% PCV13. Avoided hospitalization was found to be the best effectiveness model measure. Estimated costs for PCV7, PCV10, and PCV13 cohorts were USD13,761, 11,895, and 12,499, respectively. Costs per avoided hospitalization were USD718 for PCV7, USD333 for PCV10, andUSD 162 for PCV13. At ICER, PCV7 was dominated by the other PCVs. Eliminating PCV7, PCV13 was more cost effective than PCV10 (confirmed in sensitivity analysis). Conclusions: PCV10 and PCV13 are more cost effective than PCV7 in prevention of pneumonia in children <5 years-old in Peru. PCV13 prevents more hospitalizations and is more cost-effective than PCV10. These results should be considered when making decisions about the Peruvian National Inmunizations Schedule.


Author(s):  
Christopher McCabe ◽  
Isaac Awotwe ◽  
Mike Paulden ◽  
Andrew Sutton ◽  
Peter Hall

IntroductionAlthough stochastic analysis has become the accepted standard for decision analytic cost effectiveness models, deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis continues to be used to meet the needs of decision makers to understand the impact that changing the value taken by one specific parameter has on the results of the analysis. However, there are a number of problems with this approach.MethodsWe review the reasons why deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis will provide decision makers with biased and incomplete information. We then describe a new method - stochastic one-way sensitivity analysis (SOWSA), and apply this to a previously published cost effectiveness analysis, to produce a stochastic tornado diagram and conditional incremental net benefit curve. We then discuss how these outputs should be interpreted and the potential barriers to the implementation of SOWSA.ResultsThe results illustrate the shortcomings of the current approaches to deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis. For SOWSA, the expected costs and outcomes are captured, along with the sampled value of the parameter and these are linked to the probability that the parameter takes that value – which can be read off the probability distribution for the parameter used in the stochastic analysis. From these results it is possible to gain insights into probability that a parameter will take a value that will change a decision.ConclusionsAlthough a well-used technique, one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis has a number of shortcomings that may contribute to incorrect conclusions being drawn about the importance of certain parameter values on model results. By providing fuller information on uncertainty in model results, it is hoped that the methods here will lead to more informed decision making. Although, as with all developments in the presentation of analytic results to decision makers, care will be required to ensure that the decision makers understand the information provided to them.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 46-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leander R. Buisman ◽  
Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken ◽  
Douwe Postmus ◽  
Jolanda J. Luime ◽  
Carin A. Uyl-de Groot ◽  
...  

Objectives:There is little specific guidance on performing an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of medical tests. We developed a framework with general steps and applied it to two cases.Methods:Step 1 is to narrow down the scope of analysis by defining the test's application, target population, outcome measures, and investigating current test strategies and test strategies if the new test were available. Step 2 is to collect evidence on the current test strategy. Step 3 is to develop a conceptual model of the current and new test strategies. Step 4 is to conduct the early-CEA by evaluating the potential (cost-)effectiveness of the new test in clinical practice. Step 5 involves a decision about the further development of the test.Results:The first case illustrated the impact of varying the test performance on the headroom (maximum possible price) of an add-on test for patients with an intermediate-risk of having rheumatoid arthritis. Analyses showed that the headroom is particularly dependent on test performance. The second case estimated the minimum performance of a confirmatory imaging test to predict individual stroke risk. Different combinations of sensitivity and specificity were found to be cost-effective; if these combinations are attainable, the medical test developer can feel more confident about the value of further development of the test.Conclusions:A well-designed early-CEA methodology can improve the ability to develop (cost-)effective medical tests in an efficient manner. Early-CEAs should continuously integrate insights and evidence that arise through feedback, which may convince developers to return to earlier steps.


2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.


2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tinevimbo Shiri ◽  
Angela Loyse ◽  
Lawrence Mwenge ◽  
Tao Chen ◽  
Shabir Lakhi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Mortality from cryptococcal meningitis remains very high in Africa. In the Advancing Cryptococcal Meningitis Treatment for Africa (ACTA) trial, 2 weeks of fluconazole (FLU) plus flucytosine (5FC) was as effective and less costly than 2 weeks of amphotericin-based regimens. However, many African settings treat with FLU monotherapy, and the cost-effectiveness of adding 5FC to FLU is uncertain. Methods The effectiveness and costs of FLU+5FC were taken from ACTA, which included a costing analysis at the Zambian site. The effectiveness of FLU was derived from cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients, managed in respects other than drug therapy, as were participants in ACTA. FLU costs were derived from costs of FLU+5FC in ACTA, by subtracting 5FC drug and monitoring costs. The cost-effectiveness of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed uncertainties and a bivariate deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the impact of varying mortality and 5FC drug costs on the ICER. Results The mean costs per patient were US $847 (95% confidence interval [CI] $776–927) for FLU+5FC, and US $628 (95% CI $557–709) for FLU. The 10-week mortality rate was 35.1% (95% CI 28.9–41.7%) with FLU+5FC and 53.8% (95% CI 43.1–64.1%) with FLU. At the current 5FC price of US $1.30 per 500 mg tablet, the ICER of 5FC+FLU versus FLU alone was US $65 (95% CI $28–208) per life-year saved. Reducing the 5FC cost to between US $0.80 and US $0.40 per 500 mg resulted in an ICER between US $44 and US $28 per life-year saved. Conclusions The addition of 5FC to FLU is cost-effective for cryptococcal meningitis treatment in Africa and, if made available widely, could substantially reduce mortality rates among human immunodeficiency virus–infected persons in Africa.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajesh K. Veettil ◽  
Siang Tong Kew ◽  
Kean Ghee Lim ◽  
Pochamana Phisalprapa ◽  
Suresh Kumar ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Individuals with advanced colorectal adenomas (ACAs) are at high risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it is unclear which chemopreventive agent (CPA) is safe and cost-effective for secondary prevention. We aimed to determine, firstly, the most suitable CPA using network meta-analysis (NMA) and secondly, cost-effectiveness of CPA with or without surveillance colonoscopy (SC). Methods Systematic review and NMA of randomised controlled trials were performed, and the most suitable CPA was chosen based on efficacy and the most favourable risk–benefit profile. The economic benefits of CPA alone, 3 yearly SC alone, and a combination of CPA and SC were determined using the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in the Malaysian health-care perspective. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2018 US Dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and life-years (LYs) gained. Results According to NMA, the risk–benefit profile favours the use of aspirin at very-low-dose (ASAVLD, ≤ 100 mg/day) for secondary prevention in individuals with previous ACAs. Celecoxib is the most effective CPA but the cardiovascular adverse events are of concern. According to CEA, the combination strategy (ASAVLD with 3-yearly SC) was cost-saving and dominates its competitors as the best buy option. The probability of being cost-effective for ASAVLD alone, 3-yearly SC alone, and combination strategy were 22%, 26%, and 53%, respectively. Extending the SC interval to five years in combination strategy was more cost-effective when compared to 3-yearly SC alone (ICER of $484/LY gain and $1875/QALY). However, extending to ten years in combination strategy was not cost-effective. Conclusion ASAVLD combined with 3-yearly SC in individuals with ACAs may be a cost-effective strategy for CRC prevention. An extension of SC intervals to five years can be considered in resource-limited countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document