The cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome based on the RITA 3 trial

The published version of the aritcle can be found at the link below.Background: Evidence suggests that an early interventional strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can improve health outcomes but also increase costs when compared with a conservative strategy.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in different risk groups from a UK health-service perspective.Design: Decision-analytic model based on randomised clinical trial data.Main outcome measures: Costs in UK Sterling at 2003/2004 prices and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) combined into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Methods: Data from the third Randomised Intervention Trial of unstable Angina (RITA 3) was employed to estimate rates of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction, costs and health-related quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was estimated over patients' lifetimes within the decision-analytic model.Results: The mean incremental cost per QALY gained for an early interventional strategy was approximately £55000, £22000 and £12000 for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The early interventional strategy is approximately 1%, 35% and 95% likely to be cost-effective for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively, at a threshold of £20000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of early intervention in low-risk patients is sensitive to assumptions about the duration of the treatment effect.Conclusion: An early interventional strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS is likely to be considered cost-effective for patients at high and intermediate risk, but this is less likely to be the case for patients at low risk

Opportunities for improving the efficiency of paediatric HIV treatment programmes

Objectives: To conduct two economic analyses addressing whether to: routinely monitor HIV-infected children on antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinically or with laboratory tests; continue or stop cotrimoxazole prophylaxis when children become stabilized on ART. Design and methods: The ARROW randomized trial investigated alternative strategies to deliver paediatric ART and cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in 1206 Ugandan/Zimbabwean children. Incremental cost-effectiveness and value of implementation analyses were undertaken. Scenario analyses investigated whether laboratory monitoring (CD4 tests for efficacy monitoring; haematology/biochemistry for toxicity) could be tailored and targeted to be delivered cost-effectively. Cotrimoxazole use was examined in malaria-endemic and non-endemic settings. Results: Using all trial data, clinical monitoring delivered similar health outcomes to routine laboratory monitoring, but at a reduced cost, so was cost-effective. Continuing cotrimoxazole improved health outcomes at reduced costs. Restricting routine CD4+ monitoring to after 52 weeks following ART initiation and removing toxicity testing was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6084 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) across all age groups, but was much lower for older children (12+ years at initiation; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio =$769/QALY). Committing resources to improve cotrimoxazole implementation appears cost-effective. A healthcare system that could pay $600/QALY should be willing to spend up to$12.0 per patient-year to ensure continued provision of cotrimoxazole. Conclusion: Clinically driven monitoring of ART is cost-effective in most circumstances. Routine laboratory monitoring is generally not cost-effective at current prices, except possibly CD4 testing amongst adolescents initiating ART. Committing resources to ensure continued provision of cotrimoxazole in health facilities is more likely to represent an efficient use of resources

Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders

Introduction In Denmark, the magnitude and impact of work disability on the individual worker and society has prompted the development of a new "coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation" (CTWR) approach. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of CTWR with conventional case management (CCM) on return-to-work of workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Methods The study was a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSDs. CTWR consists of a work disability screening by an interdisciplinary team followed by the collaborative development of a RTW plan. The primary outcome variable was registered cumulative sickness absence hours during 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were work status as well as pain intensity and functional disability, measured at baseline, 3 and 12 months follow-up. The economic evaluation (intervention costs, productivity loss, and health care utilization costs) was based on administrative data derived from national registries. Results For the time intervals 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and the entire follow-up period, the number of sickness absence hours was significantly lower in the CTWR group as compared to the control group. The total costs saved in CTWR participants compared to controls were estimated at US $1,366 per person at 6 months follow-up and US$ 10,666 per person at 12 months follow-up. Conclusions Workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSD who underwent "CTWR" by an interdisciplinary team had fewer sickness absence hours than controls. The economic evaluation showed that-in terms of productivity loss-CTWR seems to be cost saving for the society

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: When is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)? • For cost-effectiveness: The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis. • For resource implications/affordability: The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed. How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines? • For cost-effectiveness: ∘ If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations. ∘ Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive. • For resource implications/affordability: ∘ Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided. How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability? • All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country. • In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied. Resource implications for WHO • From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriatic arthritis: : can we make better use of patient data registries?

The primary aim of this study is to explore the extent to which registry data may fulfill the evidence requirements of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies evaluating biologic therapies for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), where trial data are lacking or insufficient. In addition, the paper aims to identify how future data collection in PsA registries might be better tailored to inform CEA research. A review of the literature was performed to identify existing registries containing PsA patients. Where possible, information was extracted on the design and characteristics of the registries. The registries were then appraised according to a set of criteria that was formulated based on the methods currently used to model PsA in the CEA literature. A review of the literature identified 21 potentially relevant registries from around the world containing patients with PsA. There was substantial variation regarding the extent to which the registries, as a whole, were useful for the purposes of CEA studies. There were also notable disparities found in terms of the accessibility of the registries to researchers. The critical review conducted in this study showed that all of the registries identified are potentially useful, at least in some degree, for the purposes of informing CEA studies in PsA. However, no individual registry on its own was found to meet all of the evidence requirements when considering how the disease has been modeled previously

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was$2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was$240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was$16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37$17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.</p

Integrated Surveys of Neglected Tropical Diseases in Southern Sudan: How Much Do They Cost and Can They Be Refined?

Control of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) is suggested to be more cost-effective when drugs are co-administered through a single integrated delivery system rather than separate systems. An essential prerequisite for such efficiency gains is sufficient geographical overlap of the targeted diseases – lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminth infection and trachoma. Lack of data on geographical NTD distribution currently hampers the implementation of integrated control in many African countries. To generate the required data quickly and efficiently, integrated surveys of several NTDs simultaneously have been recommended. However, experience with integrated surveys is limited and requires additional research on cost and effectiveness to inform improvements in methodology and to guide scale-up. Here we analyse costs of the first integrated NTD survey round in Southern Sudan, generating average costs per implementation unit surveyed. Cost estimates are presented for use of the existing survey method and for modified versions. Key cost drivers were survey consumables and personnel, both of which are recurrent costs. These inputs could be reduced or put to more efficient use by modifying sampling for LF. To generate comparable cost estimates and identify key cost drivers in other settings we provide detailed cost data and guidance on how to replicate this work

The use of economic evaluation in CAM: an introductory framework

Background For CAM to feature prominently in health care decision-making there is a need to expand the evidence-base and to further incorporate economic evaluation into research priorities. In a world of scarce health care resources and an emphasis on efficiency and clinical efficacy, CAM, as indeed do all other treatments, requires rigorous evaluation to be considered in budget decision-making. Methods Economic evaluation provides the tools to measure the costs and health consequences of CAM interventions and thereby inform decision making. This article offers CAM researchers an introductory framework for understanding, undertaking and disseminating economic evaluation. The types of economic evaluation available for the study of CAM are discussed, and decision modelling is introduced as a method for economic evaluation with much potential for use in CAM. Two types of decision models are introduced, decision trees and Markov models, along with a worked example of how each method is used to examine costs and health consequences. This is followed by a discussion of how this information is used by decision makers. Conclusions Undoubtedly, economic evaluation methods form an important part of health care decision making. Without formal training it can seem a daunting task to consider economic evaluation, however, multidisciplinary teams provide an opportunity for health economists, CAM practitioners and other interested researchers, to work together to further develop the economic evaluation of CAM