Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy is costly but effective at reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines and compare with a range of risk- and age-based alternative strategies. DESIGN: The CHD Policy Model, a Markov-type cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: National surveys (1999 to 2004), vital statistics (2000), the Framingham Heart Study (1948 to 2000), other published data, and a direct survey of statin costs (2008). TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population age 35 to 85 years. Time Horizon: 2010 to 2040. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Full adherence to ATP III primary prevention guidelines would require starting (9.7 million) or intensifying (1.4 million) statin therapy for 11.1 million adults and would prevent 20,000 myocardial infarctions and 10,000 CHD deaths per year at an annual net cost of $3.6 billion ($42,000/QALY) if low-intensity statins cost $2.11 per pill. The ATP III guidelines would be preferred over alternative strategies if society is willing to pay $50,000/QALY and statins cost $1.54 to $2.21 per pill. At higher statin costs, ATP III is not cost-effective; at lower costs, more liberal statin-prescribing strategies would be preferred; and at costs less than $0.10 per pill, treating all persons with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 3.4 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) would yield net cost savings. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results are sensitive to the assumptions that LDL cholesterol becomes less important as a risk factor with increasing age and that little disutility results from taking a pill every day. LIMITATION: Randomized trial evidence for statin effectiveness is not available for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The ATP III guidelines are relatively cost-effective and would have a large public health impact if implemented fully in the United States. Alternate strategies may be preferred, however, depending on the cost of statins and how much society is willing to pay for better health outcomes. FUNDING: Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute and the Swanson Family Fund. The Framingham Heart Study and Framingham Offspring Study are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for secondary prophylaxis of cancer-related venous thromboembolism.

Although extended secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recently shown to be more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism, its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional prophylaxis with warfarin is uncertain. We built a decision analytic model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of a 6-month course of low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin therapy in 65-year-old patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. We used probability estimates and utilities reported in the literature and published cost data. Using a US societal perspective, we compared strategies based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with warfarin was 149,865 dollars/QALY. Low-molecular-weight heparin yielded a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.097 QALYs at the cost of 15,329 dollars. Overall, 46% (7108 dollars) of the total costs associated with low-molecular-weight heparin were attributable to pharmacy costs. Although the low-molecular-weigh heparin strategy achieved a higher incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy than the warfarin strategy (difference of 0.051 QALYs), this clinical benefit was offset by a substantial cost increment of 7,609 dollars. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to variation of the early mortality risks associated with low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin and the pharmacy costs for low-molecular-weight heparin. Based on the best available evidence, secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism. However, because of the substantial pharmacy costs of extended low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis in the US, this treatment is relatively expensive compared with warfarin.

Which screening strategy using BMD measurements would be most cost effective for hip fracture prevention in elderly women? A decision analysis based on a Markov model.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are responsible for excessive mortality, decreasing the 5-year survival rate by about 20%. From an economic perspective, they represent a major source of expense, with direct costs in hospitalization, rehabilitation, and institutionalization. The incidence rate sharply increases after the age of 70, but it can be reduced in women aged 70-80 years by therapeutic interventions. Recent analyses suggest that the most efficient strategy is to implement such interventions in women at the age of 70 years. As several guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) screening of postmenopausal women with clinical risk factors, our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two screening strategies applied to elderly women aged 70 years and older. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision-tree analysis and a Markov model. Two alternative strategies, one measuring BMD of all women, and one measuring BMD only of those having at least one risk factor, were compared with the reference strategy "no screening". Cost-effectiveness ratios were measured as cost per year gained without hip fracture. Most probabilities were based on data observed in EPIDOS, SEMOF and OFELY cohorts. RESULTS: In this model, which is mostly based on observed data, the strategy "screen all" was more cost effective than "screen women at risk." For one woman screened at the age of 70 and followed for 10 years, the incremental (additional) cost-effectiveness ratio of these two strategies compared with the reference was 4,235 euros and 8,290 euros, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this model, under the assumptions described in the paper, suggest that in women aged 70-80 years, screening all women with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) would be more effective than no screening or screening only women with at least one risk factor. Cost-effectiveness studies based on decision-analysis trees maybe useful tools for helping decision makers, and further models based on different assumptions should be performed to improve the level of evidence on cost-effectiveness ratios of the usual screening strategies for osteoporosis.

Cost-effectivness in a DRG system for two-step exchange of infected total joint arthroplasty

The costs related to the treatment of infected total joint arthroplasties represent an ever groving burden to the society. Different patient-adapted therapeutic options like débridement and retention, 1- or 2-step exchange can be used. If a 2-step exchange is used we have to consider short (2-4 weeks) or long (>4-6 weeks) interval treatment. The Swiss DRG (Diagnose related Groups) determines the reimboursement the hopsital receives for the treatment of an infected total arthroplasty. The review assesses the cost-effectiveness of hospitalisation practices linked to surgical treatment in the two-stage exchange of a prosthetic-joint infection. The aim of this retrospectiv study is to compare the economical impact between a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (6 weeks and above) interval during a two-satge procedure to determine the financial impact. Retrospectiv study of the patients with a two-stage procedure for a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at CHUV hospital Lausanne (Switzerland) between 2012 and 2013. The review analyses the correlation between the interval length and the length of the hospital stay as well as with the costs and revenues per hospital stay. In average there is a loss of 40′000 Euro per hospitalisation for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Revenues never cover all the costs, even with a short interval procedure. This economical loss increases with the length of the hospital stay if a long-term intervall is choosen. The review explores potential for improvement in reimbourement practices and hospitalisation practices in the current Swiss healthcare setting. There should be alternative setups to decrease the burden of medical costs by a) increase the reimboursment for the treatment of infected total joints or by b) splitting the hospital stay with partners (rapid transfer after first operation from center hospital to level 2 hospital and retransfer for second operation to center) in order to increase revenues.

Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus outpatient physiotherapy for non specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In recent decades the treatment of non-specific low back pain has turned to active modalities, some of which were based on cognitive-behavioural principles. Non-randomised studies clearly favour functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation over outpatient physiotherapy. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysis provide contradictory evidence regarding the effects on return to work and functional status. The aim of the present randomised study was to compare long-term functional and work status after 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation or 18 supervised outpatient physiotherapy sessions. METHODS: 109 patients with non-specific low back pain were randomised to either a 3-week functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, including physical and ergonomic training, psychological pain management, back school and information, or 18 sessions of active outpatient physiotherapy over 9 weeks. Primary outcomes were functional disability (Oswestry) and work status. Secondary outcomes were lifting capacity (Spinal Function Sort and PILE test), lumbar range-of-motion (modified-modified Schöber and fingertip-to-floor tests), trunk muscle endurance (Shirado and Biering-Sörensen tests) and aerobic capacity (modified Bruce test). RESULTS: Oswestry disability index was improved to a significantly greater extent after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation compared to outpatient physiotherapy at follow-up of 9 weeks (P = 0.012), 9 months (P = 0.023) and 12 months (P = 0.011). Work status was significantly improved after functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation only (P = 0.012), resulting in a significant difference compared to outpatient physiotherapy at 12 months' follow-up (P = 0.012). Secondary outcome results were more contrasted. CONCLUSIONS: Functional multidisciplinary rehabilitation was better than outpatient physiotherapy in improving functional and work status. From an economic point of view, these results should be backed up by a cost-effectiveness study.