A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

Targets and self monitoring in hypertension: randomised controlled trial and cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether blood pressure control in primary care could be improved with the use of patient held targets and self monitoring in a practice setting, and to assess the impact of these on health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eight general practices in south Birmingham. PARTICIPANTS: 441 people receiving treatment in primary care for hypertension but not controlled below the target of < 140/85 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the intervention group received treatment targets along with facilities to measure their own blood pressure at their general practice; they were also asked to visit their general practitioner or practice nurse if their blood pressure was repeatedly above the target level. Patients in the control group received usual care (blood pressure monitoring by their practice). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: change in systolic blood pressure at six months and one year in both intervention and control groups. Secondary outcomes: change in health behaviours, anxiety, prescribed antihypertensive drugs, patients' preferences of method of blood pressure monitoring, and costs. RESULTS: 400 (91%) patients attended follow up at one year. Systolic blood pressure in the intervention group had significantly reduced after six months (mean difference 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 0.8 mm Hg to 7.9 mm Hg)) but not after one year (mean difference 2.7 mm Hg (- 1.2 mm Hg to 6.6 mm Hg)). No overall difference was found in diastolic blood pressure, anxiety, health behaviours, or number of prescribed drugs. Patients who self monitored lost more weight than controls (as evidenced by a drop in body mass index), rated self monitoring above monitoring by a doctor or nurse, and consulted less often. Overall, self monitoring did not cost significantly more than usual care (251 pounds sterling (437 dollars; 364 euros) (95% confidence interval 233 pounds sterling to 275 pounds sterling) versus 240 pounds sterling (217 pounds sterling to 263 pounds sterling). CONCLUSIONS: Practice based self monitoring resulted in small but significant improvements of blood pressure at six months, which were not sustained after a year. Self monitoring was well received by patients, anxiety did not increase, and there was no appreciable additional cost. Practice based self monitoring is feasible and results in blood pressure control that is similar to that in usual care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared to low-molecular-weight heparins and vitamin k antagonists for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism

Objective: Cost-effectiveness analysis of a 6-month treatment of apixaban (10 mg/12h, first 7 days; 5 mg/12h afterwards) for the treatment of the first event of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and prevention of recurrences, versus low-molecular-weight heparins/vitamin K antagonists treatment (LMWH/VKA). Material and methods: A lifetime Markov model with 13 health states was used for describing the course of the disease. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT clinical trials; health outcomes were measured as life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The chosen perspective of this analysis has been the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Drugs, management of VTE and complications costs were obtained from several Spanish data sources (€, 2014). A 3% discount rate was applied to health outcomes and costs. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed in order to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Apixaban was the most effective therapy with 7.182 LYG and 5.865 QALY, versus 7.160 LYG and 5.838 QALYs with LMWH/VKA. Furthermore, apixaban had a lower total cost (€13,374.70 vs €13,738.30). Probabilistic SA confirmed dominance of apixaban (led to better health outcomes with less associated costs) in 89% of the simulations. Conclusions: Apixaban 5 mg/12h versus LMWH/VKA was an efficient therapeutic strategy for the treatment and prevention of recurrences of VTE from the NHS perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to monitor adults on antiretroviral treatment: a combined analysis of three mathematical models

Background: WHO's 2013 revisions to its Consolidated Guidelines on antiretroviral drugs recommend routine viral load monitoring, rather than clinical or immunological monitoring, as the preferred monitoring approach on the basis of clinical evidence. However, HIV programmes in resource-limited settings require guidance on the most cost-effective use of resources in view of other competing priorities such as expansion of antiretroviral therapy coverage. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative patient monitoring strategies. Methods: We evaluated a range of monitoring strategies, including clinical, CD4 cell count, and viral load monitoring, alone and together, at different frequencies and with different criteria for switching to second-line therapies. We used three independently constructed and validated models simultaneously. We estimated costs on the basis of resource use projected in the models and associated unit costs; we quantified impact as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. We compared alternatives using incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings: All models show that clinical monitoring delivers significant benefit compared with a hypothetical baseline scenario with no monitoring or switching. Regular CD4 cell count monitoring confers a benefit over clinical monitoring alone, at an incremental cost that makes it affordable in more settings than viral load monitoring, which is currently more expensive. Viral load monitoring without CD4 cell count every 6—12 months provides the greatest reductions in morbidity and mortality, but incurs a high cost per DALY averted, resulting in lost opportunities to generate health gains if implemented instead of increasing antiretroviral therapy coverage or expanding antiretroviral therapy eligibility. Interpretation: The priority for HIV programmes should be to expand antiretroviral therapy coverage, firstly at CD4 cell count lower than 350 cells per μL, and then at a CD4 cell count lower than 500 cells per μL, using lower-cost clinical or CD4 monitoring. At current costs, viral load monitoring should be considered only after high antiretroviral therapy coverage has been achieved. Point-of-care technologies and other factors reducing costs might make viral load monitoring more affordable in future. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO.

Uncertainty analysis of cost effectiveness in a tailored intervention to promote screening for colorectal cancer

Background. Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is considered cost effective but screening compliance in the US remains low. There have been very few studies on economic analyses of screening promotion strategies for colorectal cancer. The main aim of the current study is to conduct a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) and examine the uncertainty involved in the results of the CEA of a tailored intervention to promote screening for CRC among patients of a multispeciality clinic in Houston, TX. ^ Methods. The two intervention arms received a PC based tailored program and web based educational information to promote CRC screening. The incremental cost of implementing a tailored PC based program was compared to the website based education and the status quo of no intervention for each unit of effect after 12 months of delivering the intervention. Uncertainty analysis in the point estimates of cost and effect was conducted using nonparametric bootstrapping. ^ Results. The cost of implementing a web based educational intervention was $36.00 per person and the cost of the tailored PC based interactive intervention was $43.00 per person. The additional cost per person screened for the web-based strategy was $2374 and the effect of the tailored intervention was negative. ^

Cost effectiveness of adding magnetic resonance imaging to the usual management of suspected scaphoid fractures

Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of a magnetic resonance imaging scan (MRI) within 5 days of injury compared with the usual management of occult scaphoid fracture. Methods: All patients with suspected scaphoid fractures in five hospitals were invited to participate in a randomised controlled trial of usual treatment with or without an MRI scan. Healthcare costs were compared, and a cost effectiveness analysis of the use of MRI in this scenario was performed. Results: Twenty eight of the 37 patients identified were randomised: 17 in the control group, 11 in the MRI group. The groups were similar at baseline and follow up in terms of number of scaphoid fractures, other injuries, pain, and function. Of the patients without fracture, the MRI group had significantly fewer days immobilised: a median of 3.0 (interquartile range 3.0-3.0) v 10.0 (7-12) in the control group (p = 0.006). The MRI group used fewer healthcare units (median 3.0, interquartile range 2.0-4.25) than the control group (5.0, 3.0-6.5) (p = 0.03 for the difference). However, the median cost of health care in the MRI group ($594.35 AUD, $551.35-667.23) was slightly higher than in the control group ($428.15, $124.40-702.65) (p = 0.19 for the difference). The mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio derived from this simulation was that MRI costs $44.37 per day saved from unnecessary immobilisation (95% confidence interval $4.29 to $101.02). An illustrative willingness to pay was calculated using a combination of the trials measure of the subjects' individual productivity losses and the average daily earnings. Conclusions: Use of MRI in the management of occult scaphoid fracture reduces the number of days of unnecessary immobilisation and use of healthcare units. Healthcare costs increased non-significantly in relation to the use of MRI in this setting. However, when productivity losses are considered, MRI may be considered cost effective, depending on the individual case.

Cost-Effectiveness of High, Moderate and Low-Dose Statins in the Prevention of Vascular Events in the Brazilian Public Health System

Background:Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial.Objective:To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective.Methods:We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied.Results:Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios.Conclusions:Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil.

Different approaches to modelling the cost-effectiveness of schistosomiasis control

This paper reviews three different approaches to modelling the cost-effectiveness of schistosomiasis control. Although these approaches vary in their assessment of costs, the major focus of the paper is on the evaluation of effectiveness. The first model presented is a static economic model which assesses effectiveness in terms of the proportion of cases cured. This model is important in highlighting that the optimal choice of chemotherapy regime depends critically on the level of budget constraint, the unit costs of screening and treatment, the rates of compliance with screening and chemotherapy and the prevalence of infection. The limitations of this approach is that it models the cost-effectiveness of only one cycle of treatment, and effectiveness reflects only the immediate impact of treatment. The second model presented is a prevalence-based dynamic model which links prevalence rates from one year to the next, and assesses effectiveness as the proportion of cases prevented. This model was important as it introduced the concept of measuring the long-term impact of control by using a transmission model which can assess reduction in infection through time, but is limited to assessing the impact only on the prevalence of infection. The third approach presented is a theoretical framework which describes the dynamic relationships between infection and morbidity, and which assesses effectiveness in terms of case-years prevented of infection and morbidity. The use of this model in assessing the cost-effectiveness of age-targeted treatment in controlling Schistosoma mansoni is explored in detail, with respect to varying frequencies of treatment and the interaction between drug price and drug efficacy.

The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. DESIGN: Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. DATA SOURCES: We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. RESULTS: Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20,000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100,000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941).

Cost-effectiveness of an exercise intervention program in perimenopausal women: the Fitness League Against MENopause COst (FLAMENCO) randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND The high prevalence of women that do not reach the recommended level of physical activity is worrisome. A sedentary lifestyle has negative consequences on health status and increases health care costs. The main objective of this project is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a primary care-based exercise intervention in perimenopausal women. METHODS/DESIGN The present study is a Randomized Controlled Trial. A total of 150 eligible women will be recruited and randomly assigned to either a 16-week exercise intervention (3 sessions/week), or to usual care (control) group. The primary outcome measure is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The secondary outcome measures are: i) socio-demographic and clinical information; ii) body composition; iii) dietary patterns; iv) glycaemic and lipid profile; v) physical fitness; vi) physical activity and sedentary behaviour; vii) sleep quality; viii) quality of life, mental health and positive health; ix) menopause symptoms. All outcomes will be assessed at baseline and post intervention. The data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and per protocol. In addition, we will conduct a cost effectiveness analysis from a health system perspective. DISCUSSION The intervention designed is feasible and if it proves to be clinically and cost effective, it can be easily transferred to other similar contexts. Consequently, the findings of this project might help the Health Systems to identify strategies for primary prevention and health promotion as well as to reduce health care requirements and costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02358109 . Date of registration: 05/02/2015.

Cost-effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a report from the EORTC 26981/22981 NCI-C CE3 Intergroup Study.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme versus initial radiotherapy alone from a public health care perspective. METHODS: The economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Costs included all direct medical costs. Economic data were collected prospectively for a subgroup of 219 patients (38%). Unit costs for drugs, procedures, laboratory and imaging, radiotherapy, and hospital costs per day were collected from the official national reimbursement lists based on 2004. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, survival was expressed as 2.5 years restricted mean estimates. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was constructed. Confidence intervals for the ICER were calculated using the Fieller method and bootstrapping. RESULTS: The difference in 2.5 years restricted mean survival between the treatment arms was 0.25 life-years and the ICER was euro37,361 per life-year gained with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from euro19,544 to euro123,616. The area between the survival curves of the treatment arms suggests an increase of the overall survival gain for a longer follow-up. An extrapolation of the overall survival per treatment arm and imputation of costs for the extrapolated survival showed a substantial reduction in ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The ICER of euro37,361 per life-year gained is a conservative estimate. We concluded that despite the high TMZ acquisition costs, the costs per life-year gained are comparable to accepted first-line treatment with chemotherapy in patients with cancer.

Etudes Coût-efficacité: ce que devraient retenir les médecins [Cost-effectiveness analyses: what doctors should know]

The resources of our heath care system are limited. Choices in the attribution of resources are necessary to ensure its stability. A cost-effectiveness analysis compares the effects of one health intervention to another, taking into account the costs (including the saved costs) and the saved life years, adjusted for the quality of life (cost-utility). Cost-effectiveness analyses should take the societal perspective and the studied intervention should be compared to a relevant intervention actually in use. Physicians, at the interface between patients and payers, are in an ideal position to interpret, or even perform cost-effectiveness analysis, and to promote the interventions that are most effective and that have a reasonable cost.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between pituitary down-regulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist short regimen on alternate days and an antagonist protocol for assisted fertilization treatments

Objective: To compare cost-effectiveness between pituitary down-regulation with a GnRH agonist (GnRHa) short regimen on alternate days and GnRH antagonist (GnRHant) multidose protocol on in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome. Design: Prospective, randomized. Setting: A private center. Patient(s): Patients were randomized into GnRHa (n = 48) and GnRHant (n = 48) groups. Intervention(s): GnRHa stimulation protocol: administration of triptorelin on alternate days starting on the first day of the cycle, recombinant FSH (rFSH), and recombinant hCG (rhCG) microdose. GnRHant protocol: administration of a daily dose of rFSH, cetrorelix, and rhCG microdose. Main Outcome Measure(s): ICSI outcomes and treatment costs. Result(s): A significantly lower number of patients underwent embryo transfer in the GnRHa group. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly lower and miscarriage rate was significantly higher in the GnRHa group. It was observed a significant lower cost per cycle in the GnRHa group compared with the GnRHant group ($5,327.80 ± 387.30 vs. $5,900.40 ± 472.50). However, mean cost per pregnancy in the GnRHa was higher than in the GnRHant group ($19,671.80 ± 1,430.00 vs. $11,328.70 ± 907.20). Conclusion(s): Although the short controlled ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRHa on alternate days, rFSH, and rhCG microdose may lower the cost of an individual IVF cycle, it requires more cycles to achieve pregnancy. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01468441. © 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.