The psoriatic arthritis cost evaluation study: a cost-of-illness study on tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis patients with inadequate response to conventional therapy

Objective. To evaluate costs, benefits and cost–effectiveness of anti-TNF agents in PsA patients with inadequate response to conventional treatment

An economic appraisal of the Australian Medical Sheepskin for the prevention of sacral pressure ulcers from a nursing home perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many devices are in use to prevent pressure ulcers, but from most little is known about their effects and costs. One such preventive device is the Australian Medical Sheepskin that has been proven effective in three randomized trials. In this study the costs and savings from the use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin were investigated from the perspective of a nursing home.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An economic model was developed in which monetary costs and monetary savings in respect of the sheepskin were balanced against each other. The model was applied to a fictional (Dutch) nursing home with 100 beds for rehabilitation patients and a time horizon of one year. Input variables for the model consisted of investment costs for using the sheepskin (purchase and laundry), and savings through the prevented cases of pressure ulcers. The input values for the investment costs and for the effectiveness were empirically based on a trial with newly admitted rehabilitation patients from eight nursing homes. The input values for the costs of pressure ulcer treatment were estimated by means of four different approaches.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Investment costs for using the Australian Medical Sheepskin were larger than the monetary savings obtained by preventing pressure ulcers. Use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin involves an additional cost of approximately €2 per patient per day. Preventing one case of a sacral pressure ulcer by means of the Australian Medical Sheepskin involves an investment of €2,974 when the sheepskin is given to all patients. When the sheepskin is selectively used for more critical patients only, the investment to prevent one case of sacral pressure ulcers decreases to €2,479 (pressure ulcer risk patients) or €1,847 (ADL-severely impaired patients). The factors with the strongest influence on the balance are the frequency of changing the sheepskin and the costs of washing related to this. The economic model was hampered by considerable uncertainty in the estimations of the costs of pressure ulcer treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>From a nursing home perspective, the investment costs for use of the Australian Medical Sheepskin in newly admitted rehabilitation patients are larger than the monetary savings obtained by preventing pressure ulcers.</p

A Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Face-to-Face Behavioural Interventions for Smoking, Physical Activity, Diet and Alcohol

Objective: This review assesses the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of health behaviour interventions that address the major behavioural risk factors for chronic disease including; smoking, physical inactivity, poor diet and alcohol misuse. Methods: Medical and economic databases were searched for relevant economic evaluations. Studies were critically appraised using a published 35-point checklist, and the results are described using a narrative approach, noting methodological limitations. The review included 64 studies from 1995-2005, including 17 reports on multiple behaviour interventions. Results: There was considerable variation among the studies by target populations, intervention components, primary outcomes and economic methods, yet the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were consistently low (e.g., <€14,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained for smoking-cessation programs in 2006 Euros) compared to certain preventive pharmaceutical and invasive interventions. Interventions targeting high-risk population sub-groups were relatively better value for money compared to those targeting general populations. Discussion: In general, results of this review demonstrate favourable cost-effectiveness for smoking interventions, physical activity interventions and multiple behaviour interventions in high-risk groups. For alcohol and dietary interventions, although appearing economically favourable, conclusions are difficult due to the variety in study outcomes. However, methodological limitations weaken the generalisability of findings, and suggest that the results of any given study be considered carefully when being used to inform resource allocation