Web interface-supported transmission risk assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis of postdonation screening:a global model applied to Ghana, Thailand, and the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: The goal of our research was to actively involve decision makers in the economic assessment of screening strategies in their region. This study attempted to accomplish this by providing an easy-to-use Web interface at http://www.bloodsafety.info that allows decision makers to adapt this model to local conditions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness was compared of 1) adding antigen screening to antibody screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); 2) adding nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT) on hepatitis B virus (HBV), HCV, and HIV in minipool ( pool of 6 [MP6] and 24 [MP24]) to antibody screening and hepatitis B surface antigen ( HBsAg) screening; and 3) individual-donation NAT on HBV, HCV, and HIV to antibody screening and HBsAg screening for Ghana, Thailand, and the Netherlands. RESULTS: The combination of HCV antibody-antigen combination (combo) and HIV combo added to antibody screening in Ghana and Thailand was cost-effective according to the WHO criteria. MP24-NAT screening in Ghana was also cost-effective. MP24-NAT on HBV, HCV, and HIV was not cost-effective compared to the other screening strategies evaluated for the Netherlands. Large regional differences in cost-effectiveness were found for Thailand. CONCLUSION: The young transfusion recipient population of Ghana in combination with a high risk of viral transmission yields better cost-effectiveness for additional tests. The advanced age of the transfused population of the Netherlands and a small risk of viral transmission gives poor cost-effectiveness for more sensitive screening techniques. It was demonstrated that a global health economic model combined with a Web interface can provide easy access to risk assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness of tipranavir versus comparator protease inhibitor regimens in HIV infected patients previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study compares the costs and effects of a regimen with ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) to a physician-selected genotypically-defined standard-of-care comparator protease inhibitor regimen boosted with ritonavir (CPI/r) in HIV infected patients that were previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the projected lifetime costs and effects of two theoretical groups of 1000 patients, one receiving a standard of care regimen with TPV/r as a component and the other receiving a standard of care regimen with CPI/r. A 3-stage Markov model was formulated to represent three different consecutive HAART regimens. The model uses 12 health states based on viral load and CD4+ count to simulate disease progression. The transition probabilities for the Markov model were derived from a United States cohort of treatment experienced HIV patients. Furthermore, the study design was based on 48-week data from the RESIST-2 clinical trial and local Dutch costing data. Cost and health effects were discounted at 4% and 1.5% respectively according to the Dutch guideline. The analysis was conducted from the Dutch healthcare perspective using 2006 unit cost prices.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our model projects an accumulated discounted cost to the Dutch healthcare system per patient receiving the TPV/r regimen of €167,200 compared to €145,400 for the CPI/r regimen. This results in an incremental cost of €21,800 per patient. The accumulated discounted effect is 7.43 life years or 6.31 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient receiving TPV/r, compared to 6.91 life years or 5.80 QALYs per patient receiving CPI/r. This translates into an incremental effect of TPV/r over CPI/r of 0.52 life years gained (LYG) or 0.51 QALYs gained. The corresponding incremental cost effectiveness ratios (iCERs) are €41,600 per LYG and €42,500 per QALY.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We estimated the iCER for TPV/r compared to CPI/r at approximately €40,000 in treatment experienced HIV-1 infected patients in the Netherlands. This ratio may well be in range of what is acceptable and warrants reimbursement for new drug treatments in the Netherlands, in particular in therapeutic areas as end-stage oncology and HIV and other last-resort health-care interventions.</p

Modelling the Costs and Effects of Selective and Universal Hospital Admission Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Background: Screening at hospital admission for carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce nosocomial infections. The objective of this study was to determine the long-term costs and health benefits of selective and universal screening for MRSA at hospital admission, using both PCR-based and chromogenic media-based tests in various settings. Methodology/Principal Findings: A simulation model of MRSA transmission was used to determine costs and effects over 15 years from a US healthcare perspective. We compared admission screening together with isolation of identified carriers against a baseline policy without screening or isolation. Strategies included selective screening of high risk patients or universal admission screening, with PCR-based or chromogenic media-based tests, in medium (5%) or high nosocomial prevalence (15%) settings. The costs of screening and isolation per averted MRSA infection were lowest using selective chromogenic-based screening in high and medium prevalence settings, at $4,100 and$10,300, respectively. Replacing the chromogenic-based test with a PCR-based test costs $13,000 and$36,200 per additional infection averted, and subsequent extension to universal screening with PCR would cost $131,000 and$232,700 per additional infection averted, in high and medium prevalence settings respectively. Assuming $17,645 benefit per infection averted, the most cost-saving strategies in high and medium prevalence settings were selective screening with PCR and selective screening with chromogenic, respectively. Conclusions/ Significance: Admission screening costs$4,100-$21,200 per infection averted, depending on strategy and setting. Including financial benefits from averted infections, screening could well be cost saving

Cost-effectiveness of tipranavir versus comparator protease inhibitor regimens in HIV infected patients previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands-0

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Cost-effectiveness of tipranavir versus comparator protease inhibitor regimens in HIV infected patients previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands"</p><p>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/5/1/15</p><p>Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 2007;5():15-15.</p><p>Published online 22 Nov 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2211743.</p><p></p>se-case value were evaluated and these values are shown on both sides of the bars. All parameters refer to costs and are expressed in Euro price level 2006. TPV/r tipranavir with ritonavir. CPI/r comparator protease inhibitor with ritonavir. HAART highly active antiretroviral therapy. iCER incremental cost effectiveness ratio. QALY quality adjusted life year