Search

Objectives. To identify and quantify resource required and associated costs for implementing TNF-α inhibitor (TNFi) drug level and anti-drug antibody (ADAb) tests in UK rheumatology practice. Methods. A microcosting study, assuming the UK National Health Service perspective, identified the direct medical costs associated with providing TNFi drug level and ADAb testing in clinical practice. Resource use and costs per patient were identified via four stages: identification of a patient pathway with resource implications; estimation of the resources required; identification of the cost per unit of resource (2015 prices); and calculation of the total costs per patient. Univariate and multiway sensitivity analyses were performed using the variation in resource use and unit costs. Results. Total costs for TNFi drug level and concurrent ADAb testing, assessed using ELISAs on trough serum levels, were £152.52/patient (range: £147.68-159.24) if 40 patient samples were tested simultaneously. For the base-case analysis, the pre-testing phase incurred the highest costs, which included booking an additional appointment to acquire trough blood samples. The additional appointment was the key driver of costs per patient (67% of the total cost), and labour accounted for 10% and consumables 23% of the total costs. Performing ELISAs once per patient (rather than in duplicate) reduced the total costs to £133.78/patient. Conclusion. This microcosting study is the first assessing the cost of TNFi drug level and ADAb testing. The results could be used in subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses of TNFi pharmacological tests to target treatments and inform future policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, medical writers are being asked to work with health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) information. HEOR uses data from both economic and clinical research to assess the clinical and economic value of new treatments. Many medical writers have the underlying skills required to incorporate HEOR concepts into their work but need more background to do this comfortably. This article provides an introduction to health economics study design, key terms, and commonly used outcomes research approaches. It also describes how health economics writing resembles and differs from traditional medical writing. It briefly explores the present and future role of HEOR in US health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Infants born to mothers who are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive are at risk for perinatal hepatitis B infection. As prevention, these infants receive a series of 3 or 4 doses of hepatitis B vaccine starting at birth and postvaccination serologic testing. Infants with antibody levels <10 mIU/mL are considered vaccine nonresponders and should be revaccinated. The objective of this cost analysis was to assess a single-dose revaccination strategy among infant nonresponders. Methods: We used a decision analytic tree to compare the costs of a single-dose revaccination strategy with the costs of a 3-dose revaccination strategy. The analysis consisted of 3 epidemiologic scenarios that varied levels of previous protection among infants indicated for revaccination. We assumed health outcomes in each strategy were the same, and we evaluated costs from the societal perspective using 2016 US dollars. We conducted sensitivity analyses on key variables, including the minimum required efficacy of a single revaccination dose. Results: In all analyses, the single-dose revaccination strategy was a lower-cost option than the 3-dose revaccination strategy. Under the assumption that all revaccination visits were previously unscheduled, single-dose revaccination reduced the cost per infant by $119.81 to $155.72 (depending on the scenario). Across all scenarios, the most conservative estimate for the threshold efficacy (the minimum efficacy required to result in a lower-cost option) value of single-dose revaccination was 67%. Conclusions: For infants who were born to HBsAg-positive mothers and who were not responding to the initial vaccine series, a single-dose revaccination strategy, compared with a 3-dose revaccination strategy, reduced costs across several scenarios. These results helped inform the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' vote in February 2017 to recommend single-dose revaccination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overactive bladder is a common condition, with recent findings estimating the prevalence in adults at about 15%. Symptoms, including urinary urgency, high voiding frequency and urge incontinence, have been shown to decrease patients' quality of life. Given its high prevalence, the economic burden of overactive bladder is also substantial, with a recent estimate placing the annual cost in the US at 9.1 billion US dollars (year 2000 values). The objective of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of published economic evaluations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for overactive bladder. Published economic evaluations of treatments for overactive bladder have focused entirely on pharmacological treatments -- mainly on the two most commonly used drugs, oxybutynin and tolterodine, each of which is available in immediate- and extended-release formulations. Ten economic evaluations (more than half are cost-effectiveness studies) have been published. Modelling with decision trees or Markov models has been the predominant method. Evaluations comparing drug therapy with no treatment have concluded that drug therapy is cost effective. Analyses comparing the formulations of oxybutynin and tolterodine have produced highly inconsistent results, largely due to the sources of data employed for effectiveness and treatment discontinuation rates. There are no evaluations of drugs relative to non-pharmacological treatment, and there are other significant gaps in the economic evaluations of treatment to date. These include gaps resulting from a lack of reliable data on the performance of these drugs in real-world settings, particularly data on long-term persistence with treatment. A more definitive pharmacoeconomic comparison of oxybutynin and tolterodine formulations, incorporating all available clinical data, and other treatment options would help direct treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of serious thromboembolic events occurring in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are in women with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).Objectives: The purpose of this study was to present a thorough review and cost analysis regarding the use of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in OHSS to inform clinical management.Data Sources: Databases used were Pubmed and Embase, in addition to checking reference lists of retrieved articles (inception to November 2017).Methods: The systematic search strategy identified 365 titles and abstracts. Articles included in the qualitative synthesis had identified venous thrombosis incidence rates or ratios. A separate search for the cost model was conducted recognizing all associated complications of VTE. The decision tree was modeled to best fit the patient population and a sensitivity analysis was performed over a range of variables.Results: The cost of VTE event per OHSS patient not on prophylaxis was €5940 (range €3405 to €38,727), versus €4134 (€2705 to €23,192) per event per patient on prophylaxis, amounting to a saving of (€19 to €23,192) per VTE per patient. Sensitivity analysis found VTE prophyaxis to be cost effective if the incidence of VTE in the OHSS population was greater than 2.79%. Prophylactic therapy was cost effective through 16 weeks of treatment.Limitations: OHSS is infrequent and hence, the incidence of VTE in patients with OHSS is low; therefore, the data used to inform the incidence of VTE in OHSS in the model carry some uncertainty. Further, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has side effects therefore individualization of care must be considered.Conclusions: With the increasing incidence of infertility and requirement for ART, thromboembolism in OHSS poses a major health threat for patients. VTE prophylaxis using enoxaparin was cost effective in patients with severe OHSS over a wide range of costs and incidences. Prophylaxis was also cost effective through the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As economic considerations become more important in healthcare reimbursement, decisions about the further development of medical innovations need to take into account not only medical need and potential clinical effectiveness, but also cost-effectiveness. Already early in the innovation process economic evaluations can support decisions on development in specific indications or patient groups by anticipating future reimbursement and implementation decisions. One potential concept for early assessment is value-based pricing.Methods: The objective is to assess the feasibility of value-based pricing and product design for a hypothetical vascular closure device in the pre-clinical stage which aims at decreasing bleeding events. A deterministic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of established vascular closure devices from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance system. To identify early benchmarks for pricing and product design, three strategies of determining the product's value are explored: 1) savings from complications avoided by the new device; 2) valuation of the avoided complications based on an assumed willingness-to-pay-threshold (the efficiency frontier approach); 3) value associated with modifying the care pathways within which the device would be applied.Results: Use of established vascular closure devices is dominated by manual compression. The hypothetical vascular closure device reduces overall complication rates at higher costs than manual compression. Maximum cost savings of only about €4 per catheterization could be realized by applying the hypothetical device. Extrapolation of an efficiency frontier is only possible for one subgroup where vascular closure devices are not a dominated strategy. Modifying care in terms of same-day discharge of patients treated with vascular closure devices could result in cost savings of €400-600 per catheterization.Conclusions: It was partially feasible to calculate value-based prices for the novel closure device which can be used to inform product design. However, modifying the care pathway may generate much more value from the payers' perspective than modifying the device per se. Manufacturers should thus explore the feasibility of combining reimbursement of their product with arrangements that make same-day discharge attractive also for hospitals. Due to the early nature of the product, the results are afflicted with substantial uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Neuraxial blockade (epidural or spinal anesthesia/analgesia) with external cephalic version increases the external cephalic version success rate. Hospitals and insurers may affect access to neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version, but the costs to these institutions remain largely unstudied. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of neuraxial blockade use during external cephalic version from hospital and insurance payer perspectives. Secondarily, we estimated the effect of neuraxial blockade on cesarean delivery rates. Methods A decision-analysis model was developed using costs and probabilities occurring prenatally through the delivery hospital admission. Model inputs were derived from the literature, national databases, and local supply costs. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness. Results Neuraxial blockade was cost saving to both hospitals ($30 per delivery) and insurers ($539 per delivery) using baseline estimates. From both perspectives, however, the model was sensitive to multiple variables. Monte Carlo simulation indicated neuraxial blockade to be more costly in approximately 50% of scenarios. The model demonstrated that routine use of neuraxial blockade during external cephalic version, compared to no neuraxial blockade, prevented 17 cesarean deliveries for every 100 external cephalic versions attempted. Conclusions Neuraxial blockade is associated with minimal hospital and insurer cost changes in the setting of external cephalic version, while reducing the cesarean delivery rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Micafungin demonstrated non-inferiority to caspofungin as definitive therapy for candidaemia and invasive candidiasis ( IC) in a major randomised clinical trial. Aim The aim of this study was to investigate if micafungin is a cost-saving option compared with caspofungin for treating candidaemia and IC. Methods A decision analytical model was constructed to capture downstream consequences of using either agent as initial therapy for candidaemia and IC. The main outcomes were treatment success and treatment failure (i.e. death, mycological persistence, emergent infection, clinical failure but microbiological success). Outcome probabilities and treatment pathways were derived from the literature. Cost inputs were from the latest Australian resources, and resource use was estimated by expert panel. The analysis was from the Australian hospital perspective. Sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation were conducted. Results Micafungin ( AU$52 816) was associated with a lower total cost than caspofungin ( AU$52 976), with a net cost-saving of $160 per patient. This was primarily due to the lower cost associated with alternative antifungal treatment in the micafungin arm. Hospitalisation was the main cost-driver for both arms. The model outcome was most sensitive to the proportion of treatment success in the micafungin arm. Uncertainty analysis demonstrated that micafungin had a 58% chance of being cost-saving compared with caspofungin. Conclusions Micafungin was cost-equivalent to caspofungin in treating candidaemia and IC, with variation in drug acquisition cost the critical factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Secondary prevention involves monitoring and screening to prevent negative sequelae from chronic diseases such as cancer. Breast cancer treatment sequelae, such as lymphedema, may occur early or late and often negatively affect function. Secondary prevention through prospective physical therapy surveillance aids in early identification and treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Early intervention may reduce the need for intensive rehabilitation and may be cost saving. This perspective article compares a prospective surveillance model with a traditional model of impairment-based care and examines direct treatment costs associated with each program. Intervention and supply costs were estimated based on the Medicare 2009 physician fee schedule for 2 groups: (1) a prospective surveillance model group (PSM group) and (2) a traditional model group (TM group). The PSM group comprised all women with breast cancer who were receiving interval prospective surveillance, assuming that one third would develop early-stage BCRL. The prospective surveillance model includes the cost of screening all women plus the cost of intervention for early-stage BCRL. The TM group comprised women referred for BCRL treatment using a traditional model of referral based on late-stage lymphedema. The traditional model cost includes the direct cost of treating patients with advanced-stage lymphedema. The cost to manage early-stage BCRL per patient per year using a prospective surveillance model is $636.19. The cost to manage late-stage BCRL per patient per year using a traditional model is $3,124.92. The prospective surveillance model is emerging as the standard of care in breast cancer treatment and is a potential cost-saving mechanism for BCRL treatment. Further analysis of indirect costs and utility is necessary to assess cost-effectiveness. A shift in the paradigm of physical therapy toward a prospective surveillance model is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Low molecular weight heparins are effective and have a good tolerability profile as first-line prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in major orthopaedic surgery. However, pharmacological inequivalence within the class could lead to differences in cost-effectiveness ratios.Objective: To quantify the potential economic impact of subcutaneous bemiparin sodium 3500 IU/day compared with enoxaparin sodium 40 mg/day as prophylaxis for VTE in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, considering both in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes and costs during 6 weeks of postoperative follow-up.Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a decision modelling approach. The results were expressed in terms of costs and incremental cost effectiveness in Euro (2002 values). The treatment costs (hospital stay, physician services, drug administration) and costs incurred due to complications such as pulmonary embolism and/or proximal deep vein thrombosis, bleeding events, wound haematoma and thrombocytopenia were considered for this analysis. The target population comprised all adult patients undergoing TKR surgery included in a previous clinical trial (n = 381). The study was conducted in the setting of the Spanish National Health System. The time horizon chosen was 6 weeks.Results: Bemiparin provided cost savings of Euro144.48 per patient compared with enoxaparin when costs derived from treatment and complications during the 6-week postoperative period were considered (Euro4675.01 vs Euro4819.49). Pharmacy costs per patient were lower for bemiparin during hospital stay (Euro43.34 vs Euro50.20; difference, Euro-6.86) and for post-discharge prophylaxis (Euro68.63 vs Euro87.78; difference Euro-19.15). Bemiparin was calculated to avoid 42 additional VTE events per 1000 patients treated at 6 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that bemiparin was dominant over enoxaparin, producing better outcomes and cost savings. The sensitivity analysis supported the cost effectiveness of bemiparin in all the ranges tested for complications and costs.Conclusions: Our model suggests, based on its underlying assumptions and data, that bemiparin may be more cost effective than enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in total knee replacement surgery in the Spanish healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a user-friendly tool for managing the transfer of economic evaluation results.Methods: Factors that may influence the transfer of health economic study results were systematically identified and the way they impact on transferability was investigated. A transferability decision chart was developed that includes: knock-out criteria; a checklist based on the transferability factors; and methods for improving transferability and for assessing the uncertainty of transferred results. This approach was tested on various international cost-effectiveness studies in the areas of interventional cardiology, vaccination and screening.Results: The transfer of study results is possible pending the outcomes of the transferability check and necessary adjustments. Transferability factors can be grouped into areas of methodological, healthcare system and population characteristics. Different levels of effort are required for analysis of factors, ranging from very low (e.g. discount rate) to very high (e.g. practice variation). The impact of differences of most transferability factors can be estimated via the key health economic determinants: capacity utilisation, effectiveness, productivity loss and returns to scale. Depending on the outcomes of the transferability check a correction of the study results for inflation and for differences related to currencies or purchasing power might be sufficient. Otherwise, modelling-based adjustments might be necessary, requiring the (re-)building and sometimes structural modification of the study model. For determination of the most essential adjustments, a univariate sensitivity analysis seems appropriate. If not all relevant study parameters can be substituted with country-specific ones, multivariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis seems to be a promising way to quantify the uncertainty associated with a transfer. If study results cannot be transferred, the transfer of study models or designs should be investigated as this can significantly save time when conducting a new study.Conclusions: Our transferability decision chart is a transparent and user-friendly tool for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results. A state of the art description of the methodology in a study, providing detailed components for calculation, is not only essential for determining its transferability but also for improving it via modelling adjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic disease include ischaemic heart disease (including myocardial infarction [MI]) and cerebrovascular disease (including ischaemic stroke [IS]). Although costs generated by the clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic disease represent an important economic burden for any healthcare system, very few economic comparative data are available.Objective: To: (i) assess management costs of the different practice patterns for acute and chronic phases for MI, IS and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in eight European countries; and (ii) to simulate the cost of managing a patient with an atherothrombotic disease for 2 years in Europe.Study Perspective: Healthcare system.Methods: Firstly, the medical costs of managing MI and IS were analysed during the acute phase and subsequent 6-month periods over a total of 2 years. In each case, a decision tree was designed to indicate resource use. Assumptions concerning patient management and resource use were based on currently available local and international literature, official national statistics and local expert opinions (Delphi panel). Costs were assessed using diagnosis-related groups (Austria, Italy, Portugal and Sweden), or hospital databases and national tariffs (Belgium, France, Spain and Switzerland). Secondly, these costs were correlated to data from a large randomised clinical trial to estimate the overall cost per patient with atherothrombotic disease over a 2-year period.Results: For MI, there was a 2-fold difference in costs between the eight countries (euro9512-18 293), with 47-76% of costs devoted to acute management, 14-48% to follow-up management during the first year, and 4-17% to follow-up during the second year. For IS, there was a 10-fold difference (euro5607-56 370), with 18-75% devoted to follow-up for the years 1995-1997.Conclusions: There are differences in the overall costs and cost breakdown in the clinical management patterns of MI and IS in Europe. These differences seem to arise as a result of local treatment pattern specificities as well as the availability of specific and well-adapted structures for patients' rehabilitation. Further studies are necessary to fully explain these differences. The assessment of the total medical costs of managing an atherothrombotic patient over a 2-year period (MI, IS, established PAD) has to take into account the risk of ischaemic events in different vascular areas (MI, IS or major leg ischaemia). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]