iStent inject? and cataract surgery for mild-to-moderate primary open angle glaucoma in Japan: a cost-utility analysis

AIM: To evaluate the cost-utility of iStent inject;with cataract surgery vs cataract surgery alone in patients with mild-to-moderate primary open angle glaucoma(POAG) in the Japanese setting from a public payer’s perspective.METHODS: A Markov model was adapted to estimate the cost-utility of iStent inject;plus cataract surgery vs cataract surgery alone in one eye in patients with mild-tomoderate POAG over lifetime horizon from the perspective of Japanese public payer. Japanese sources were used for patients’ characteristics, clinical data, utility, and costs whenever available. Non-Japanese data were validated by Japanese clinical experts. RESULTS: In the probabilistic base case analysis, iStent inject;with cataract surgery was found to be cost-effective compared with cataract surgery alone over a lifetime horizon when using the ￥5 000 000/quality-adjusted life year(QALY)willingness-to-pay threshold. The incremental cost-utility ratio(ICUR) was estimated to be ￥1 430 647/QALY gained and the incremental cost-utility ratio(ICER) was estimated to be ￥12 845 154/blind eye avoided. iStent inject;with cataract surgery vs cataract surgery alone was found to increase costs(￥1 025 785 vs ￥933 759, respectively) but was more effective in increasing QALYs(12.80 vs 12.74) and avoiding blinded eyes(0.133 vs 0.141). The differences in costs were mainly driven by costs of primary surgery(￥279 903 vs ￥121 349). In the scenario analysis from a societal perspective, which included caregiver burden, iStent inject;with cataract surgery was found to dominate cataract surgery alone.CONCLUSION: The iStent inject;with cataract surgery is a cost-effective strategy over cataract surgery alone from the public payer’s perspective and cost-saving from the societal perspective in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG in Japan.

Follow the nevus: the cost-utility of monitoring for growth of choroidal nevi

AIM: To develop a model to evaluate the cost-utility of choroidal nevi monitoring recommendations with varying clinical risk factors.METHODS: A Markov model was created to evaluate the cost-utility in cost per quality-adjusted life-year($/QALY) for monitoring patients with choroidal nevus. This probabilistic model was applied both to a hypothetically monitored and unmonitored group of patients beginning at different ages and with varying clinical risk factors of the nevus. Duration of screening was modeled for the remainder of the patients’ life expectancy. Best available clinical data on the prevalence and incidence of choroidal nevi/melanoma, and relative risk of nevus transformation were combined with the initial and downstream costs of screening, downstream costs of melanoma-related mortality, and QALY saved by monitoring, to estimate the best monitoring regimen. Main outcome measures were average $/QALY saved by consensus recommended monitoring scenarios for the duration of a patient’s remaining life expectancy in comparison with no follow-up, and the cost-utility of modified regimens. RESULTS: The $/QALY of the recommended monitoring scenarios varied substantially based on nevus clinical risk factors, patient age, frequency of follow-up, and objective testing utilized. The $/QALY for the recommended monitoring scenario of a flat nevus without risk factors in a 60-yearold patient was $77 180. The $/QALY for monitoring a nevus with 3 clinical risk factors in a 60-year-old patient was $85 393. The $/QALY values for differently-aged patients were larger, and intermediate degrees of risk factors for nevus growth varied, depending largely upon the specifics of the modeled monitoring scenarios.CONCLUSION: The average $/QALY of currently recommended monitoring scenarios fall within economically acceptable standards and could provide insight for formulating appropriate clinical strategies. Cost-utility could be enhanced by targeting higher risk groups and considering less frequent monitoring for the lower risk groups.

A Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Oncoplastic Breast Surgery to Standard Lumpectomy in Large Breasted Women

Purpose: Ablative options, beyond mastectomy, for large breasted patients with breast cancer include oncoplastic resection via reduction pattern and standard lumpectomy. Oncoplastic resection also entails a contralateral procedure for symmetry and the potential benefit of a superior cosmetic outcome. Our aim was to examine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment strategy comparing it to standard lumpectomy in treating breast cancer patients. Methods: A literature review was performed of the probabilities and outcomes related to treatment of unilateral breast cancer via oncoplastic resection or unilateral lumpectomy. Utility score surveys were used to estimate the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with a successful procedure, additional margins excision and post-operative complications. A decision analysis tree was developed to highlight the more cost-effective strategy. An Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed to check the robustness of our data. Results: Oncoplastic resection was associated with fewer positive margins relative to standard lumpectomy (10.0% versus 18%). In cases with positive margins, a greater percentage of oncoplastic resection patients chose a mastectomy compared to the lumpectomy patients (72% versus 19%). Utility scores for a successful operation favored oncoplastic resection (92.6 versus 86.55), but in instances of positive margins, favored the lumpectomy patients (74.2 versus 70.2). Decision tree analysis revealed that oncoplastic resection was more cost-effective with an ICUR of $2609.66/QALY gained. Conclusion: Oncoplastic resection represents a cost-effective strategy for the large breasted patient and provides the surgical team yet another reasonable option for the appropriate patient.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Nivolumab plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Adenocarcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced gastric, gastro-oesophageal junction, and esophageal adenocarcinoma in China. Methods: Based on CheckMate649, a partitioned survival model was carried out with a circulation cycle of 6 weeks to simulate the patient’s lifetime. Sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. Results: The results of the base-case analysis showed that both the total cost and utility of the nivolumab group were higher, and the ICUR value was CNY 267498.67/QALY, more than 3 times the GDP per capita of China in 2020. The results of deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the three most influential factors were the utility value of PFS state, the cost of nivolumab and the discount rate. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of base-case analysis, proving that the results were robust. The scenario analysis illustrated that economical price of nivolumab was CNY 3652.71. Conclusions: Under the willing-to-pay threshold of three times the GDP per capita of China in 2020, compared with chemotherapy alone, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option in China.

Cost-utility of erlotinib combined with bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after completion of chemotherapy with bevacizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Bevacizumab plus erlotinib prolonged patients＇ progression-free survive （PFS） versus bevacizumab alone for the maintenance treatment of none-small cell lung cancer （NSCLC） in phase III clinical trial ATLAS （ClinicalTrials. gov identifier NCT00257608）, which repealed a benefit outcome and acceptable side-effects, but whether its cost performance would be accepted by patients is blurry. The aim of our research is to figure out which strategy is the best option in clinic and would spread broadly. Markov Model was used to calculate incremental cost-utility radios （ICURs） and 10-year quality-adjusted life years （QALY） of both strategies. The clinical data were collected from phase III clinical trial ATLAS （ClinicalTrials. gov identifier NCT00257608）. The cost data were obtained from Chinese health care system. In the research, one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis （PSA） and Monte-Carlo analysis were performed to test the stability of the results. The better strategy was bevacizumab alone strategy, and the cumulative costs of both strategies were $178 648.47 and $46 445.28, respectively, and the QALY was 12.506 and 10.643, respectively. The ICUR of combined application was $70 962.53/QALY, which was much higher than 3 times of mean gross domestic product （GDP） in China, suggesting that this strategy was no economical at all. In one-way analysis, the change of willingness-to-pay could not influence the consequence. In addition, in Monte-Carlo analysis, the probability distribution of cost, effectiveness and ICUR was in normal distribution. Taken together, bevacizumab alone strategy was the better strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Clinical outcomes and cost-utility after sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation

Background Randomized studies have shown beneficial effects of drug-eluting stent （DES） in reducing the risk of repeated revascularization. Other studies have shown higher proportion of death, myocardial infarction （MI） and increased cost concerning DES. However the long term safety and effectiveness of DES have been questioned recently.Methods To compare long term clinical outcomes, health-related quality of life （HRQOL） and cost-utility after sirolimus-eluting stent （SES） and bare metal stent （BMS） implantation in angina patients in China, 1241 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization （PCl） with either SES （n=632） or BMS （n=609） were enrolled continuously in this prospective, nonrandomized, multi-center registry study.Results Totally 1570 stents were implanted for 1334 lesions. Follow-up was completed in 1205 （97.1%） patients at 12 months. Rates of MI, all causes of death were similar between the two groups. Significant differences were found at rate of cardiovascular re-hospitalization （136 （22.4%） in BMS group vs. 68 （10.8%） in SES group, P=0.001） and recurrent angina （149 （24.5%） vs. 71 （11.3%）, P=0.001）. Dramatic difference was observed when compared the baseline and 9-month HRQOL scores intra-group （P 〈0.001）. However no significant difference was found inter-group either in baseline or follow-up HRQOL. Compared with SES, the total cost in BMS was significantly lower on discharge （62 546.0 vs. 78 245.0 Yuan, P=0.001）. And follow-up expenditure was remarkably higher in the BMS group than that in the SES group （13 412.0 vs. 8 812.0 Yuan, P=0.0001）.Conclusions There were no significant differences on death, in-stent thrombosis, MI irrespective of stent type. SES was superior to BMS on improvement of life quality. SES was with higher cost-utility compared to BMS.

Value within otolaryngology:Assessment of the cost-utility analysis literature

Objective:To assess the characteristics and quality of cost utility analyses (CUA) related to otolaryngology within the CEA registry and to summarize their collective results. Methods:All cost-utility analyses published between 1976 and 2011 contained in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry) were evaluated. Topics that fall within the care of an otolaryngologist were included in the review regardless of the presence of an otolaryn-gologist author. Potential associations between various study characteristics and CEA registry quality scores were evaluated using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Results:Sixty-one of 2913 (2.1%) total CUA publications screened were related to otolaryn-gology. Eighteen of 61 (29.5%) publications included an otolaryngologist as an author. Fourteen studies agreed on the cost effectiveness of at least unilateral cochlear implantation and six of seven (85.7%) studies demonstrated the cost effectiveness of continuous positive airway pres-sure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Forty-six percent (28 of 61) of all manuscripts were published between 2008 and 2011. A more recent publication year was associated with a higher CEA registry quality score while the presence of an otolaryngologist author and journal impact factor had no significant correlation with the quality of the CUA. Conclusion:Based on current evidence in the CEA registry, unilateral cochlear implantation for hearing loss and CPAP for OSA are both cost-effective therapeutic interventions. Although CUAs in otolaryngology have increased in quantity and improved in quality in more recent years, there is a relative lack of CUAs in otolaryngology in comparison to other subspecialties. Copyright a 2016 Chinese Medical Association. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-SA license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).

Cost Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin in Egyptian Patients with CKD from the Payer Perspective

Background: Chronic kidney disease is a serious public health issue in Egypt. An estimated 13% of individuals in Egypt are expected to have CKD, with a higher prevalence among older adults and in rural regions. The primary goal of the study was to compare the cost-utility of the standard of care alone against add-on medication, dapagliflozin, as a preventative measure against complications of CKD in cases with or without diabetes mellitus. Methods: A lifetime Markov state transition model with a 3-month cycle was employed based on the clinical evidence from the DAPA-CKD clinical trial. The model was to provide estimates of the long-term economic and health impact of managing CKD patients. Cost-effectiveness is assessed regarding the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This economic evaluation study used a payer perspective. Moreover, the study evaluated the impact on the budget due to the undertaking of dapagliflozin. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses, as well as a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were employed. Results: During a lifetime horizon, the difference in cost between dapagliflozin and SOC was EGP -65,212 (USD 2126.89). The difference in QALY between dapagliflozin and SOC was 4.3. In CKD patients, adding dapagliflozin to ramipril generates better QALYs and lower costs than ramipril alone. Dapagliflozin improved the outcomes and generated cost savings. A deterministic one was sensitivity analysis revealed that the model is robust to changes in all variables included. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations showed that in about 82.64% of trials, dapagliflozin is cost-saving. The undertaking of dapagliflozin by any percent will have a positive impact on the budget. Conclusion: During the lifetime horizon, dapagliflozin is cost-saving;it benefits the quality of life and the total cost. The addition of dapagliflozin to SOC has a saving effect of 11.9% of the budget.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tele-retinopathy of prematurity screening in Iran

AIM:To conduct a cost-utility analysis of the teleretinopathy of prematurity(ROP)screening program against no screening.METHODS:A decision tree model was developed to identify and treat the infants with threshold ROP through the tele-screening system compared with no screening program from the societal perspective.We used the quality adjusted life years(QALY)index to measure the scenarios’effectiveness,which was discounted for the future years by 0.058.One hundred twenty-six randomly selected newborns with ROP required treatment were investigated to extract the treatment information.We considered the direct medical and non-medical costs in cost calculations analysed by the bottom-up approach.The figures of the model’s inputs were calculated using the Monte Carlo simulation that generated 1000 random iteration of the data,and a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed on the model to cope with the potential uncertainties.RESULTS:The total and per capita needed the budget to establish a tele-ROP screening system were estimated at over 1.5 million and 35.13 USD,respectively.The total cost of identifying and treating an ROP case in tele-screening and no screening strategies were obtained as 108.72 and 63.52 USD,respectively,and their lifetime discounted QALY gained were calculated as 15.39 and 15.11,respectively.Therefore,incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER)of tele-screening strategy against the competitive strategy was achieved as 161.43 USD.CONCLUSION:Tele-ROP screening program is one of the most cost-effective interventions in the Iranian health system and has a high priority to receive a budget for implementation.

Economic Evaluation of Gastroscopy for Detecting Gastric Cancer in Chinese Natural Population

Objective To evaluate the economy of detecting gastric cancer by electronic gastroscope in Chinese natural population of different ages and genders.Methods A Markov model was constructed for the population,including both men and women of different ages.The model cycle was one year and the simulation time was 60 years.The cost-effectiveness of electronic gastroscopy in detecting gastric cancer of general population in China was analyzed from the perspective of the whole society,and the stability of the results was verified by sensitivity analysis.Results and Conclusion For the general population,the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio(ICER)of gastric cancer screening from the age of 50 is 50143 yuan/QALY(quality-adjusted life-year),which is less than two times of per capita gross domestic product(GDP)compared with the screening from the age of 55.For men who start gastric cancer screening at the age of 50,the ICER is 38525 yuan/QALY,which is less than two times of per capita GDP,and it is economical.For women who start the screening from the age of 55,the ICER is 47814 yuan/QALY,which is less than two times of per capita GDP,so it is economical.The results of sensitivity analysis are consistent with the conclusions of basic analysis,and the results of basic analysis are stable.For the general population,it is more economical to start gastric cancer screening from the age of 50,while for men and women,it is more economical to start gastric cancer screening from the age of 50 and 55,respectively.