Search

Background: The NCIC CTG LY.12 study showed that gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) were noninferior to dexamethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin (DHAP) in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive histology lymphoma prior to autologous stem cell transplantation. We conducted an economic evaluation from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system based on trial data. Methods: The primary outcome was an incremental cost utility analysis comparing costs and benefits associated with GDP vs DHAP. Resource utilization data were collected from 519 Canadian patients in the trial. Costs were presented in 2012 Canadian dollars and disaggregated to highlight the major cost drivers of care. Benefit was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on utilities translated from prospectively collected quality-of-life data. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The mean overall costs of treatment per patient in the GDP and DHAP arms were $19 961 (95% confidence interval (CI) = $17 286 to $24 565) and $34 425 (95% CI = $31 901 to $39 520), respectively, with an incremental difference in direct medical costs of $14 464 per patient in favor of GDP (P < .001). The predominant cost driver for both treatment arms was related to hospitalizations. The mean discounted quality-adjusted overall survival with GDP was 0.161 QALYs and 0.152 QALYs for DHAP (difference = 0.01 QALYs, P = .146). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, GDP was associated with both cost savings and improved quality-adjusted outcomes compared with DHAP in 92.6% of cost-pair simulations. Conclusions: GDP was associated with both lower costs and similar quality-adjusted outcomes compared with DHAP in patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma. Considering both costs and outcomes, GDP was the dominant therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis during influenza A outbreaks with that of amantadine postexposure prophylaxis or no postexposure prophylaxis in long-term care facilities (LTCFs)., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision analytic model from a government-payer perspective., Setting: A Canadian LTCF, with high staff vaccination, at the beginning of influenza season., Participants: Elderly, influenza-vaccinated patients living in a Canadian LTCF., Measurements: Incremental costs (or savings) per influenza-like illness case avoided compared with usual care., Results: From a government-payer perspective, this analysis showed that oseltamivir was a dominant strategy because it was associated with the fewest influenza-like illness cases, with cost savings of $1,249 per 100 patients in 2001 Canadian dollars compared with amantadine and $3,357 per 100 patients compared with no prophylaxis. Costs for amantadine dose calculation and hospitalization for adverse events contributed to amantadine being a more-expensive prophylaxis strategy than oseltamivir. Both prophylaxis strategies were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis., Conclusion: Despite high influenza vaccination rates, influenza outbreaks continue to emerge in LTCFs, necessitating cost-effective measures to further limit the spread of influenza and related complications. Although amantadine has a lower acquisition cost than oseltamivir, it is associated with more adverse events, lower efficacy, and individualized dosing requirements, leading to higher overall costs and more influenza-like illness cases than oseltamivir. Therefore the use of oseltamivir postexposure prophylaxis is more cost-effective than the current standard of care with amantadine prophylaxis or no prophylaxis.