The cost-utility of intraoperative tranexamic acid in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing long posterior spinal fusion

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients undergoing long posterior (≥ 5 vertebral levels) spinal fusion.

METHODS

A decision-analysis model was built for a hypothetical 60-year-old adult patient with spinal deformity undergoing long posterior spinal fusion. A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to obtain event probabilities, costs and health utilities at each node. Health utilities were utilized to calculate Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). A base-case analysis was carried out to obtain the incremental cost and effectiveness of intraoperative TXA. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainty in our model and obtain mean incremental costs, effectiveness, and net monetary benefits. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed to identify the variables with the most impact on our model.

RESULTS

Use of intraoperative TXA was the favored strategy in 88% of the iterations. The mean incremental utility ratio for using intraoperative TXA demonstrated higher benefit and lower cost while being lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold set at $50,000 per quality adjusted life years. Use of intraoperative TXA was associated with a mean incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of $3743 (95% CI 3492-3995). One-way sensitivity analysis reported cost of blood transfusions due to post-operative anemia to be a major driver of cost-utility analysis.

CONCLUSION

Use of intraoperative TXAs is a cost-effective strategy to reduce overall perioperative costs related to post-operative blood transfusions. Administration of intraoperative TXA should be considered for long fusions in ASD population when not explicitly contra-indicated due to patient factors.

An Economic Analysis of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Covered Stent Shunt for Variceal Bleeding and Refractory Ascites in a Spanish Setting

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) in two indications from a Spanish perspective. Firstly, as pre-emptive treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding (indication 1) compared with endoscopic band ligation plus drug therapy. Secondly, to treat refractory ascites (indication 2) compared with large volume paracentesis.

METHODS

A two-state (alive and dead) Markov model was developed to capture the costs and health impact for the two indications over a 2-year time horizon with monthly cycles. In the alive state, patients could experience adverse event(s), associated with costs and disutility, such as recurrent variceal bleeding, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Discount rates of 3% for utilities and costs and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY were applied.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, TIPSS was estimated to be cost-effective as a pre-emptive treatment for indication 1 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €230 and 0.211, respectively). TIPSS also remained cost-effective (€16,819/QALY) in a conservative scenario analysis, conducted with an alternate source for clinical parameters. The key drivers of the outcomes were survival for the comparator arm, mean band ligation outpatient procedures, and TIPSS treatment costs. TIPSS was estimated to dominate the comparator for indication 2 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €25,687 and 0.531, respectively). The key drivers of the outcomes were monthly paracentesis sessions and cost per inpatient stay for those undergoing paracentesis.

CONCLUSIONS

TIPSS is likely to be a cost-effective and a cost-saving treatment in patients with cirrhosis in indications 1 and 2, compared with standard treatments. The analyses estimate clinical benefits along with reduced healthcare costs from avoided downstream resource consumption.

Cost-Utility of Liraglutide Plus Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk in Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Liraglutide has demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary major composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke). This study aimed to determine the cost-utility of adding liraglutide to the standard of care (SoC) for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Thailand for three cohorts: people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with no ASCVD, and all people with T2D.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to capture the long-term costs and outcomes under the perspective of the healthcare system. Costs were based on local data, the transitional probabilities were derived from the LEADER trial, and utilities were derived from published studies. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to SoC, adding liraglutide incurred higher costs and gained more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of above 1 million Thai baht (THB) for the three cohorts. The most influential parameter was the discount rate. When the annual cost of liraglutide reduced from 87,874 to 30,340 THB, 30,116 THB, and 31,617 THB for all people with T2D, people with ASCVD, and people without ASCVD, respectively, the ICER fell below the local threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. Compared to the SoC treatment, the liraglutide group acquired more clinical benefit in terms of fewer CVD. Sensitivity analyses revealed that with an increase in the level of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, adding liraglutide had an increased chance of being a cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the SoC treatment, adding liraglutide at the current cost is not cost-effective at the local WTP. People with T2D with ASCVD would have the most potential gain from adding liraglutide treatment compared to other populations.

Economic evaluation of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy following acute myocardial infarction (REALITY): trial-based cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses

AIMS

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios of a restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with anaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n = 666) with AMI and haemoglobin between 7-8 and 10 g/dL recruited in 35 hospitals in France and Spain were randomly assigned to a restrictive (n = 342) or a liberal (n = 324) transfusion strategy with 1-year prospective collection of resource utilization and quality of life using the EQ5D3L questionnaire. The economic evaluation was based on 648 patients from the per-protocol population. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cost-effectiveness, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) averted as the effectiveness outcome. and a 1-year cost-utility ratio.The 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €33 065 saved per additional MACE averted with the restrictive vs. liberal strategy, with an 84% probability for the restrictive strategy to be cost-saving and MACE-reducing (i.e. dominant). At 1 year, the point estimate of the cost-utility ratio was €191 500 saved per quality-adjusted life year gained; however, the cumulated MACE was outside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, resulting in a decremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a point estimate of €72 000 saved per additional MACE with the restrictive strategy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AMI and anaemia, the restrictive transfusion strategy was dominant (cost-saving and outcome-improving) at 30 days. At 1 year, the restrictive strategy remained cost-saving, but clinical non-inferiority on MACE was no longer maintained.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113.

ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY

The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction is associated with lower healthcare costs, but more evidence is needed to ascertain its long-term clinical impact.

The cost-effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implants in UK adults

OBJECTIVE

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated its eligibility criteria for unilateral cochlear implants (UCIs) in 2019. NICE claimed this would not impact the cost-effectiveness results used within its 2009 technology appraisal guidance. This claim is uncertain given changed clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness estimates of UCIs in UK adults with severe to profound hearing loss within the contemporary NHS environment.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis employing a Markov model was undertaken to compare UCIs with hearing aids or no hearing aids for people with severe to profound hearing loss. A clinical pathway was developed to estimate resource use. Health-related quality of life, potential adverse events, device upgrades and device failure were captured. Unit costs were derived mostly from the NHS data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further assessed the effect of uncertain model inputs.

RESULTS

A UCI is likely to be deemed cost-effective when compared to a hearing aid (£11,946/QALY) or no hearing aid (£10,499/QALY). A UCI has an 93.0% and 98.7% likelihood of being cost-effective within the UK adult population when compared to a hearing aid or no hearing aid, respectively. ICERs were mostly sensitive to the proportion of people eligible for cochlear implant, discount rate, surgery and device costs and processor upgrade cost.

CONCLUSION

UCIs remain cost-effective despite changes to clinical practice and increased healthcare unit costs. Updating the NICE criteria to provide better access UCIs is projected to increase annual implants in adults and children by 70% and expenditure by £28.6 million within three years. This increased access to UCIs will further improve quality of life of recipients and overall social welfare.

Economic Evaluation of Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Cost-Utility Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOT) have been approved in Europe and Canada for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a rare and chronic disease. The objective of this study was to assess the economic impact of BOT on both the induction and maintenance of clinico-pathological remission of EoE by performing a cost-utility analysis (CUA).

METHODS

For both the induction and maintenance settings, BOT was compared to no treatment in a target population of adult patients with EoE non-responsive to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment. Markov models were developed for the induction and maintenance settings over 52-week and life-time horizons, respectively. Analyses were performed from both a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspective. The resulting incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 Canadian dollars/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case results.

RESULTS

In the base-case probabilistic analysis, BOT compared to no treatment resulted in an ICUR of $1073/QALY and $30,555/QALY from a MoH perspective in the induction and maintenance settings, respectively. BOT was a cost-effective option for both induction and maintenance in > 99% of Monte Carlo simulations. In the scenario analyses, the deterministic ICUR of BOT compared to no treatment varied from $682/QALY to $8510/QALY in the induction setting and $21,005/QALY to $55,157/QALY in the maintenance setting.

CONCLUSION

BOT was cost-effective compared to no treatment for both the induction and maintenance of clinico-pathological remission of EoE in patients non-responsive to PPIs.

Effectiveness, safety, and cost-utility of a knee brace in medial knee osteoarthritis: the ERGONOMIE randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost-utility of a custom-made knee brace versus usual care over 1 year in medial knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

120 patients with medial knee OA (VAS pain at rest >40/100), classified as Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-IV, were randomized into two groups: ODRA plus usual care (ODRA group) and usual care alone (UCA group). The primary effectiveness outcome was the change in VAS pain between M0 and M12. Secondary outcomes included changes over 1 year in KOOS (function) and OAKHQOL (quality of life) scores. Drug consumption, compliance, safety of the knee brace, and cost-utility over 1 year were also assessed.

RESULTS

The ODRA group was associated with a higher improvement in: VAS pain (adjusted mean difference of -11.8; 95% CI: -21.1 to -2.5); all KOOS subscales (pain: +8.8; 95% CI: 1.4-16.2); other symptoms (+10.4; 95% CI: 2.7-18); function in activities of daily living (+9.2; 95% CI: 1.1-17.2); function in sports and leisure (+12.3; 95% CI: 4.3-20.3); quality of life (+9.9; 95% CI: 0.9-15.9), OAKHQOL subscales (pain: +14.8; 95% CI: 5.0-24.6); and physical activities (+8.2; 95% CI: 0.6-15.8), and with a significant decrease in analgesics consumption at M12 compared with the UCA group. Despite localized side-effects, observance was good at M12 (median: 5.3 h/day). The ODRA group had a more than 85% chance of being cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €45 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERGONOMIE RCT demonstrated significant clinical benefits of an unloader custom-made knee brace in terms of improvements in pain, function, and some aspects of quality of life over 1 year in medial knee OA, as well as its potential cost-utility from a societal perspective.

Comparative efficacy and cost-utility of combined cataract and minimally invasive glaucoma surgery in primary open-angle glaucoma

Purpose

To assess the comparative efficacy and the long-term cost–utility of alternative minimally invasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGSs) when combined with cataract surgery in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods

Treatment effects, as measured by the 1-year reduction in intraocular pressure (IOP), were estimated with an adjusted indirect treatment comparison. Evidence from randomized clinical trials was identified for four different MIGS methods. A disease-transition model was developed by capturing clinically relevant POAG stages and the expected natural disease evolution. Outcomes of the disease-transition model were the comparative utility [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)], cost and cost–utility of included strategies in a lifetime horizon.

Results

Estimated 1-year IOP reductions were: cataract surgery − 2.05 mmHg (95% CI − 3.38; − 0.72), one trabecular micro-bypass stent − 3.15 mmHg (95% CI − 5.66; − 0.64), two trabecular micro-bypass stents − 4.85 mmHg (95% CI − 7.71; − 1.99) and intracanalicular scaffold − 2.25 mmHg (95% CI − 4.87; 0.37). Discounted outcomes from the disease-transition model appraised the strategy of two trabecular micro-bypass stents with cataract surgery in the moderate POAG stage as the one providing the greatest added value, with 10,955€ per additional QALY. Improved outcomes were seen when assessing MIGS in the moderate POAG stage.

Conclusions

When indirectly comparing alternative MIGS methods combined with cataract surgery, the option of two trabecular micro-bypass stents showed both a superior efficacy and long-term cost–utility from a German perspective. Moreover, outcomes of the disease-transition model suggest POAG patients to beneficiate the most from an earlier intervention in the moderate stage contrary to waiting until an advanced disease is present.

How relevant are social costs in economic evaluations? The case of Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to analyse how the inclusion (exclusion) of social costs can alter the results and conclusions of economic evaluations in the field of Alzheimer's disease interventions.

METHODS

We designed a systematic review that included economic evaluations in Alzheimer's disease. The search strategy was launched in 2000 and ran until November 2018. The inclusion criteria were: being an original study published in a scientific journal, being an economic evaluation of any intervention related to Alzheimer's disease, including social costs (informal care costs and/or productivity losses), being written in English, using QALYs as an outcome for the incremental cost-utility analysis, and separating the results according to the perspective applied.

RESULTS

It was finally included 27 studies and 55 economic evaluations. Around 11% of economic evaluations changed their main conclusions. More precisely, three of them concluded that the new intervention became cost-effective when the societal perspective was considered, whereas when using just the health care payer perspective, the new intervention did not result in a cost-utility ratio below the threshold considered. Nevertheless, the inclusion of social cost can also influence the results, as 37% of the economic evaluations included became the dominant strategy after including social costs when they were already cost-effective in the health care perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Social costs can substantially modify the results of the economic evaluations. Therefore, taking into account social costs in diseases such as Alzheimer's can be a key element in making decisions about public financing and pricing of health interventions.

A one-year cost-utility analysis of REBOA versus RTACC for non-compressible torso haemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Major trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in young adults, especially from massive non-compressible torso haemorrhage. The standard technique to control distal haemorrhage and maximise central perfusion is resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RTACC). More recently, the minimally invasive technique of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been developed to similarly limit distal haemorrhage without the morbidity of thoracotomy; cost-utility studies on this intervention, however, are still lacking. The aim of this study was to perform a one-year cost-utility analysis of REBOA as an intervention for patients with major traumatic non-compressible abdominal haemorrhage, compared to RTACC within the U.K.'s National Health Service.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the outcomes following REBOA and RTACC was conducted based on the published literature of survival and complication rates after intervention. Utility was obtained from studies that used the EQ-5D index and from self-conducted surveys. Costs were calculated using 2016/2017 National Health Service tariff data and supplemented from further literature. A cost-utility analysis was then conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies for REBOA and 20 studies for RTACC were included. The mean injury severity scores for RTACC and REBOA were 34 and 39, and mean probability of death was 9.7 and 54%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of REBOA when compared to RTACC was £44,617.44 per quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, by exceeding the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness's willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year, suggests that this intervention is not cost-effective in comparison to RTACC. However, REBOA yielded a 157% improvement in utility with a comparatively small cost increase of 31.5%.

CONCLUSION

Although REBOA has not been found to be cost-effective when compared to RTACC, ultimately, clinical experience and expertise should be the main factor in driving the decision over which intervention to prioritise in the emergency context.

Cost-Utility of Access to Care, a National HIV Linkage, Re-engagement and Retention in Care Program

Linkage to HIV medical care and on-going engagement in HIV medical care are vital for ending the HIV epidemic. However, little is known about the cost-utility of HIV linkage, re-engagement and retention (LRC) in care programs. This paper presents the cost-utility analysis of Access to Care, a national HIV LRC program. Using standard methods from the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, we calculated the cost-utility ratio. Seven Access to Care programs were cost-effective and two were cost-saving. This study adds to a small but growing body of evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of LRC programs.

Anticoagulant plus antiplatelet therapy for atrial fibrillation : Cost-utility of combination therapy with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence indicates combination therapy with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for atrial fibrillation (AF) will be increasingly required. Numerous studies compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation alone in AF, i. e., non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. warfarin. However, the addition of antiplatelet agents with their potential for decreasing thromboembolic stroke counter-balanced by an increased bleeding risk has received less attention. Thus, we evaluated the cost-utility of this combination therapy.

METHOD AND RESULTS

We obtained event estimates from our recent meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials designed to compare NOACs with warfarin in patients with AF. We examined patient subgroups within each trial that received antiplatelet therapy in addition to anticoagulation. Utilities were derived from the literature and cost estimates from the German health-care system. A decision tree was constructed and populated with these parameters. We used a 1-year time horizon because combination therapy is not recommended beyond this time. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The derived ICER was 13,168.50 € per QALY. NOAC prices exerted considerable influence on the calculation. Nevertheless, there is potential for ICER shifts in favor of warfarin, e.g., if warfarin-mediated anticoagulation control is improved and thereby adverse events decrease. Conversely, if NOAC adherence decreases, adverse events could increase.

CONCLUSION

The derived ICER was 13,168.50 € per QALY, consistent with NOACs being cost-effective vs. warfarin when anticoagulation is used with antiplatelet agents. Nevertheless, country-, practice-, and patient-related factors influence the ICER. Our cost-utility calculation should be used a starting point for decision-making.

The Cost-effectiveness of Dulaglutide 1.5mg versus Exenatide QW for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in France

INTRODUCTION

Dulaglutide is a novel onceweekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus exenatide QW for the management of T2DM in France.

METHODS

The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the expected lifetime direct medical costs and outcomes of T2DM from the perspective of the French National Health Service. In the absence of head-to-head data, relative efficacy was derived from a network meta-analysis. Patient cohort characteristics were derived from the AWARD-2 trial. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before escalating to insulin therapy. Costs included treatment costs and costs associated with long-term complications of T2DM. Utilities were estimated based on a recent systematic review. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were generated.

RESULTS

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with lower costs (lifetime costs €41,562 vs €43,021) and increased health benefits (lifetime quality-adjusted life years: QALYs 9.804 vs 9.757) versus exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust across a range of plausible input parameters. The CEAC indicated a 99.5% probability that dulaglutide would be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €30,000.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced expected costs and increased expected QALYs when compared against exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. Compared with exenatide QW, dulaglutide 1.5 mg can provide additional health benefits for patients with T2DM and may result in cost savings for payers.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy versus Low Dose Rate Brachytherapy for Localised Prostate Cancer: a Cost-Utility Analysis

AIMS

To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with low dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT) for localised prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was developed from the healthcare payer perspective to simulate the history of a 66-year-old man with low-risk PCa. The model followed patients yearly over their remaining lifetimes. Health states included 'recurrence-free', 'biochemical recurrence' (BR), 'metastatic' and 'death'. Transition probabilities were based on a retrospective cohort analysis undertaken at our institution. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs were assigned in 2015 Canadian dollars ($) and reflected Ontario's health system and departmental costs. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000/QALY was used.

RESULTS

SBRT was the dominant strategy with 0.008LYs and 0.029QALYs gained and a reduction in cost of $2615. Under base case conditions, our results were sensitive to the BR probability associated with both strategies. LDR-BT becomes the preferred strategy if the BR with SBRT is 1.3*[baseline BR_SBRT] or if the BR with LDR-BT is 0.76*[baseline BR_LDR-BT]. When assuming the same BR for both strategies, LDR-BT becomes marginally more effective with 0.009QALYs gained at a cost of $272 848/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT represents an economically attractive radiation strategy. Further research should be carried out to provide longer-term follow-up and high-quality evidence.

Rituximab in generalized myasthenia gravis: Clinical, quality of life and cost-utility analysis

Highlights

Rituximab use in MG patients lead to the reduction of relapses and to a lesser use of immunosuppressive agents in our series.Rituximab use in our MG patients decreased healthcare costs after treatment, comparing to the pre-treatment period.Rituximab is a clinical effective treatment for B cell-related diseases like MG and seems to be a cost-saving intervention.

Introduction

Myasthenia Gravis is a humoral autoimmune disorder affecting the neuromuscular junction. Its treatment is based on immunosuppressive agents. Rituximab has shown efficacy in refractory and severe Myasthenia Gravis. We evaluate the potential pharmacoeconomic and quality of life benefits of its use.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of Myasthenia Gravis patients treated with Rituximab was performed. Clinical charts were reviewed and scales for assessment of quality of life were applied. Health care costs were estimated based on the average of each treatment and daily charge of hospitalization.

Results

Six patients were treated. Rituximab use lead to the reduction of relapses and to a lesser use of immunosuppressive agents. An overall decrease in healthcare costs after treatment was observed along with an evident clinical improvement.

Discussion

Rituximab is a clinical effective treatment for B cell-related diseases like MG and seems to be a cost-saving intervention. Its use is associated with a decrease in the need for other immunosuppressive treatments whilst improving quality of life and reducing health costs.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban and warfarin in the prevention of thromboembolic complications among atrial fibrillation patients

Background

To reduce the risk of thromboembolic complications, clinical guidelines recommend anticoagulation treatment for almost all atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Although warfarin has long been the primary treatment alternative, now newer alternatives such as apixaban have proven effective in prevention of the thromboembolic complications of non-valvular AF. The aim of this study is to assess the cost–effectiveness of apixaban when compared with warfarin in the prevention of AF-associated thromboembolic complications in Finland.

Methods

The assessment was performed with a lifetime Markov-model with the following health states: non-valvular AF, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, other intracranial bleed, other major bleed, clinically relevant non-major bleed, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism. The treatment efficacies were obtained from the ARISTOTLE trial. Representative Finnish input data were used for the model states, including background mortality, resource use, costs (in 2014 values), and EQ-5D-3L-based quality of life. The results (with 3 % annual discounting) are presented as incremental cost–effectiveness ratios [ICER, cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained], the expected value of perfect information (EVPI), and the probability of apixaban being cost–effective at various willingness-to-pay levels.

Results

Apixaban increased life-expectancy by 0.17 years and quality-adjusted life-expectancy by 0.14 QALYs when compared with warfarin. Additional QALY was gained with apixaban at a cost of 1824 euros based on the deterministic analysis. The maximum EVPI was 649 euros/patient at 1282 euros per QALY gained in the probabilistic analysis. The probability of apixaban being cost–effective reached 80 % when the willingness-to-pay per QALY gained was 14,857 euros. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, ICERs varied from dominance of apixaban to additional QALY being gained at a cost of 12,312 euros.

Conclusions

The ICERs obtained were well below the WHO-CHOICE threshold values for cost–effective interventions, suggesting that apixaban is a very cost–effective treatment alternative for warfarin in Finnish patients with AF.

Does arthroscopic subacromial decompression improve quality of life

INTRODUCTION

There has been a significant rise in the volume of subacromial decompression surgery performed in the UK. This study aimed to determine whether arthroscopic subacromial decompression improves health related quality of life in a cost effective manner.

METHODS

Patients undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression surgery for impingement were enrolled between 2012 and 2014. The Oxford shoulder score and the EQ-5D™ instruments were completed prior to and following surgery. A cost-utility analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were eligible for the study with a mean follow-up duration of 15 months (range: 4-27 months). The mean Oxford shoulder score improved by 13 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11-15 points). The mean health utility gain extrapolated from the EQ-5D™ questionnaire improved by 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16-0.30), translating to a minimum cost per QALY of £5,683.

CONCLUSIONS

Subacromial decompression leads to significant improvement in function and quality of life in a cost effective manner. This provides justification for its ongoing practice by appropriately trained shoulder surgeons in correctly selected patients.

Economic evaluation of stuttering treatment in preschool children: The RESTART-study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the Lidcombe Program (LP) compared with treatment based on the Demands and Capacities Model (RESTART-DCM) for preschool children who stutter.

METHOD

A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were carried out alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial (the RESTART-study). In total, 199 children in 20 speech clinics participated. Outcome measures included the number needed to treat, based on the percentage of children who did not stutter at 18 months, and Health-related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS and HUI3) at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Health-related Quality of Life scores were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (V-QALYs for the EQ-VAS and U-QALYs for the HUI3). Direct and indirect costs were measured by cost questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed. Percentages of children who did not stutter in both groups were compared by a chi-square test. Between-group differences in mean QALYs and costs, as well as cost effectiveness and cost-utility ratios, were evaluated by applying bootstrapping techniques.

RESULTS

After 18 months, health outcomes were slightly better in the LP group, although only the difference in V-QALYs was statistical significant (0.018; 95% CI: 0.008 to 0.027) with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.17). Mean costs for the LP group were significantly higher compared to the RESTART-DCM group (€3199 versus €3032), again with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3360 for one additional child who did not stutter with the LP, and the estimated cost-utility ratios were €10,413 (extra cost per extra V-QALY) and €18,617 (extra cost per extra U-QALY). The results indicated a high probability that the LP is cost-effective compared to RESTART-DCM treatment given a threshold for willingness-to-pay of €20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in effects and costs between the LP and RESTART-DCM treatment were small. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were in favor of the LP. The LP is considered a good alternative to RESTART-DCM treatment in Dutch primary care.

Cost-utility of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: systematic review and economic evaluation

PURPOSE

To assess the cost-utility and perioperative costs of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) versus open-TLIF for degenerative lumbar pathologies.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified from six electronic databases. Predefined end points were extracted and meta-analysis conducted from the identified studies.

RESULTS

For each study, the direct hospital cost for MI-TLIF was found to be less than that of open-TLIF. When these outcomes were pooled, direct hospital costs were found to be significantly lower in the MI-TLIF group [weighted mean difference (WMD), -$2820; I (2) = 61 %; P < 0.00001]. MI-TLIF was also associated with shorter hospitalization (WMD, 0.99; 95 % CI -1.81, -0.17; I (2) = 96 %; P = 0.02), trend toward reduced complications (relative risk 0.53; 95 % CI 0.23, 1.06; I (2) = 0 %; P = 0.07), and reduced blood loss (WMD, -246.40 mL; I (2) = 98 %; P = 0.003), but was not associated with a significant difference in operation time (WMD, -67.05; 95 % CI -169.44, 35.35; I (2) = 100 %; P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

From the limited evidence, the available data suggest a trend of significantly reduced perioperative costs, length of stay, and blood loss for minimally invasive compared with open surgical approaches for TLIF. MI-TLIF may represent an opportunity for optimal utilization and allocation of health-care resources from both a hospital and societal perspective.

Generalizability of cost-utility analyses across countries and settings

All societies have limited resources, so decisions have to be made about which public health interventions should be provided. A major tool used for prioritisation is cost-utility analysis (CUA) where the outcomes are measured in terms of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) prevented. Collecting data and building models to calculate the ratio of net costs (i.e.: intervention costs less treatment costs averted due to decreases in morbidity and mortality) to outcomes (CUR) is complex and time consuming. Therefore, there is a great appeal in using CUA calculations that have already been published in other countries. This paper points out the many limitations and inaccuracies caused by generalizing results from CUAs across different countries. However, if time constraints are pressing then first-order estimates of results could be presented after adjustments for the major drivers of the CUR, such as incidence rates, intervention costs and averted treatment costs.