scholarly journals Can Medical Cannabis Therapies be Cost-Effective in the Non-Surgical Management of Chronic Knee Pain?

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117954412110024
Author(s):  
Christopher Vannabouathong ◽  
Meng Zhu ◽  
Yaping Chang ◽  
Mohit Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Knee Pain ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Medical Cannabis ◽  
Chronic Knee Pain ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Chronic Pain Conditions ◽  
Soft Gels

Introduction: Chronic knee pain is a common musculoskeletal condition, which usually leads to decreased quality of life and a substantial financial burden. Various non-surgical treatments have been developed to relieve pain, restore function and delay surgical intervention. Research on the benefits of medical cannabis (MC) is emerging supporting its use for chronic pain conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MC compared to current non-surgical therapies for chronic knee pain conditions. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian, single payer perspective and compared various MC therapies (oils, soft gels and dried flowers at different daily doses) to bracing, glucosamine, pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids. We estimated the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with each treatment over 1 year and calculated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) using both the mean and median estimates for costs and utilities gained across the range of reported values. The final ICURs were compared to willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $66 714, $133 428 and $200 141 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY gained. Results: Regardless of the estimates used (mean or median), both MC oils and soft gels at both the minimal and maximal recommended daily doses were cost-effective compared to all current knee pain therapies at the lowest WTP threshold. Dried flowers were only cost-effective up to a certain dosage (0.75 and 1 g/day based on mean and median estimates, respectively), but all dosages were cost-effective when the WTP was increased to $133 428/QALY gained. Conclusion: Our study showed that MC may be a cost-effective strategy in the management of chronic knee pain; however, the evidence on the medical use of cannabis is limited and predominantly low-quality. Additional trials on MC are definitely needed, specifically in patients with chronic knee pain.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line (1L) treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany: Data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 800-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ilse van Oostrum ◽  
Chris Pescott ◽  
Alma Katharina Steinbach-Buechert ◽  
Bart Heeg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Primary Tumors ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

800 Background: The randomized, phase 3 FIRE-3 trial evaluated 1L FOLFIRI + cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC; overall survival favored FOLFIRI + cetuximab by > 8 months. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs that of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab as 1L treatment for patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC (including the patient subgroup with RAS wt, left-sided [LS] primary tumors, as LS is a predictive factor). Methods: A standard oncology 3–health-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to analyze the costs and health benefits of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs those of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab from a German payer perspective based on data from FIRE-3 and the literature. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. A 3.5% discounting rate was applied to the modeled costs and outcomes. Results: Discounted costs, health gains, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for patients with RAS wt (base case) and patients with RAS wt, LS (subgroup) mCRC are summarized in the Table. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at relevant European willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €55,000 and €80,000, FOLFIRI + cetuximab had a 64.0% and 81.6% (base case) and 80.5% and 92.4% (subgroup) probability of being cost-effective vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab, respectively. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC at official WTP thresholds applied by relevant European health technology assessment agencies. The cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab is more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with RAS wt, LS tumors.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Ixazomib (IXA), carfilzomib (CAR), elotuzumab (ELO) or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) versus LEN+DEX only in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM): A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Comparative Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 228424031987657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Néboa Zozaya ◽  
Margarita Capel ◽  
Susana Simón ◽  
Alfonso Soto-González
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Comparative Results

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25,000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies’ methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients’ clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.

scholarly journals In primary care, is measuring free-thyroxine plus thyroid-stimulating hormone to detect hypopituitarism cost-effective? A cost utility analysis using Markov chain models

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Shine ◽  
Tim James ◽  
Amanda Adler
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Model Simulation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Thyroid Stimulating Hormone ◽  
Free Thyroxine ◽  
Thyroid Function Tests ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Hypothyroidism ◽  
Stimulating Hormone

ObjectiveWe examined whether it is cost-effective to measure free thyroxine (FT4) in addition to thyrotropin (thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)) on all requests for thyroid function tests from primary care on adult patients.BackgroundHypopituitarism occurs in about 4 people per 100 000 per year. Loss of thyrotropin (TSH) secretion may lead to secondary hypothyroidism with a low TSH and low FT4, and this pattern may help to diagnose hypopituitarism that might otherwise be missed.DesignMarkov model simulation.Primary outcome measureIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the ratio of cost in pounds to benefit in quality-adjusted life years of this strategy.ResultsThe ICER for this strategy was £71 437. Factors with a large influence on the ICER were the utilities of the treated hypopituitary state, the likelihood of going to the general practitioner (GP) and of the GP recognising a hypopituitary patient. The ICER would be below £20 000 at a cost to the user of an FT4 measurement of £0.61.ConclusionWith FT4 measurements at their present cost to the user, routine inclusion of FT4 in a thyroid hormone profile is not cost-effective.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Stress Management Intervention Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Stress Management ◽  
Perceived Stress ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pan-Genotypic Sofosbuvir-Based Regimens for Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Jun Zhou ◽  
Jing Cao ◽  
Hui Shi ◽  
Nasheen Naidoo ◽  
Sherehe Semba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Genotype 1 ◽  
Hcv Genotype ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Hcv Genotype 1

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 is the most prevalent HCV infection in China. Sofosbuvir-based direct antiviral agent (DAA) regimens are the current mainstays of treatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) regimens became reimbursable in China in 2020. Thus, this study aimed to identify the optimal SOF-based regimen and to inform efficient use of healthcare resources by optimizing DAA use in treating HCV genotype 1.Methods and Models: A modeling-based cost-utility analysis was conducted from the payer's perspective targeting adult Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Direct medical costs and health utilities were inputted into a Markov model to simulate lifetime experiences of chronically infected HCV patients after receiving SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL or the traditional strategy of pegylated interferon (pegIFN) + ribavirin (RBV). Discounted lifetime cost and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed and compared to generate the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR). An ICUR below the threshold of 31,500 $/QALY suggests cost-effectiveness. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of model findings.Results: Both SOF/LDV and SOF/VEL regimens were dominant to the pegIFN + RBV regimen by creating more QALYs and incurring less cost. SOF/LDV produced 0.542 more QALYs but cost $10,390 less than pegIFN + RBV. Relative to SOF/LDV, SOF/VEL had an ICUR of 168,239 $/QALY which did not meet the cost-effectiveness standard. Therefore SOF/LDV was the optimal strategy. These findings were robust to linear and random variations of model parameters. However, reducing the SOF/VEL price by 40% would make this regimen the most cost-effective option.Conclusions: SOF/LDV was found to be the most cost-effective treatment, and SOF/VEL was also economically dominant to pegIFN + RBV. These findings indicated that replacing pegIFN + RBV with DAA regimens could be a promising strategy.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of a Hospital-Based Palliative Care Program

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. e408-e420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarina R. Isenberg ◽  
Chunhua Lu ◽  
John McQuade ◽  
Rab Razzak ◽  
Brian W. Weir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Variable Cost ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Threshold Analysis ◽  
Contribution Margin ◽  
Life Years

Purpose: Establish costs of an inpatient palliative care unit (PCU) and conduct a threshold analysis to estimate the maximum possible costs for the PCU to be considered cost effective. Methods: We used a hospital perspective to determine costs on the basis of claims from administrative data from Johns Hopkins PCU between March 2013 and March 2014. Using existing literature, we estimated the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) that the PCU could generate. We conducted a threshold analysis to assess the maximum costs for the PCU to be considered cost effective, incorporating willingness to pay ($180,000 per QALY). Three types of costs were considered, which included variable costs alone, contribution margin (ie, revenue minus variable costs), and PCU cost savings compared with usual care (from a separate publication). Results: The data showed that there were 153 patient encounters (PEs), variable costs of $1,050,031 ($1,343 per PE per day), a contribution margin of $318,413 ($407 per PE per day), and savings compared with usual care of $353,645 ($452 savings per PE per day). On the basis of the literature, the program could generate 3.11 QALYs from PEs (0.05 QALY) and caregivers (3.06 QALYs). The threshold analysis determined that the maximum variable cost required to be cost effective was $559,800 (an additional $716 per PE per day could be spent). Conclusion: According to variable costs, the PCU was not cost effective; however, when considering savings of the PCU compared with usual care, the PCU was cost saving. The contribution margin showed that the PCU was cost saving. This study supports efforts to expand PCUs, which enhance care for patients and their caregivers and can generate hospital savings. Future research should prospectively explore the cost utility of PCUs.

A cost-utility analysis of open A1 pulley release for the treatment of trigger finger

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 1083-1086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul H. C. Stirling ◽  
Nicholas D. Clement ◽  
Paul J. Jenkins ◽  
Andrew D. Duckworth ◽  
Jane E. McEachan
Keyword(s):  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
A1 Pulley

The United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Care Excellence considers a procedure to be cost-effective if the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained falls below a threshold of £20,000–£30,000 (€22,600–33,900; US$24,600–$36,900). This study used cost per quality-adjusted life year methodology to determine the cost-utility ratio of A1 pulley release. Pre- and postoperative EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were collected prospectively over 6 years from 192 patients. The median pre- and postoperative indices derived from the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Likert scores were significantly different at 0.77 and 0.80. The mean life expectancy was 21 years. The mean number of quality-adjusted life years gained was 1 per patient. The mean cost-utility ratio per patient was £32,308 (€36,508; US$39,730) and £16,154 (€18,254; US$19,869) at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Provided the benefit of surgery was maintained over the remaining life expectancy, the cost-utility ratio decreased to £1537 (€1737; US$1891) per patient. A1 pulley release is cost-effective provided the benefit is maintained for 2 years. The procedure is also associated with a statistically significant improvement in quality of life. Level of evidence: III

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document