Cost-consequence Model Research Articles

A cost-consequence analysis comparing three distinct cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Abstract Background Cardiac ablation is a well-established treatment option for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF). While radiofrequency, cryo-energy, and laser energies are commonly employed in catheter ablation, they present the risk of potential damage to adjacent organs such as the oesophagus and phrenic nerve. To address these concerns, new technologies are being explored including pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal energy approach that employs high-voltage, short-duration pulses to selectively destroy target cells. Purpose The present analysis aims at: i) quantifying the short-term costs related to three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF (PFA, radiofrequency ablation -RFA-, and cryo-balloon ablation -CRYO-), identify the cost drivers, and assess potential variations in resource consumption for each treatment alternative; ii) comparing the medium-term (1-year) economic implications of adopting the three alternatives, in terms of redo procedures (effectiveness) and complications (safety). Methods A cost-consequence model was developed to compare economic outcomes of the three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF in the short- (during procedure) and medium-term (1-year). Resource consumption data during the procedure were collected by two European medical centres specialized in cardiac ablation (N=61 patients). For the medium-term analysis, costs were correlated to the effectiveness and safety of the procedures. The clinical data (i.e., redo and complication rates) considered in the model were retrieved from published literature. Costs and tariffs were collected from economic formularies of the respective hospitals. A scenario analysis was conducted to evaluate economic outcomes under various hypothetical difference in the prices of treatment kits. Results A significant difference was registered in terms of pre-procedural (mean±SD: 13.9±4.4 min for PFA, 20.1±7.6 min for CRYO and 20.5±7.7 min for RFA; ANOVA test p=0.003) and procedural time (skin-to-skin), favouring PFA over RFA and CRYO (53.6±26.8 min for PFA, 72.4±28.1 min for CRYO and 149.9±99.9 min for RFA; p<0.0001; Table 1). PFA was associated with lower procedural costs vs CRYO (-€400) and RFA (-€827). A similar economic advantage was observed in the medium-term (Table 2). The scenario analysis showed that PFA would be cost-saving vs CRYO (Δtotal costs ≤ 0) up to a price difference of +€881 (i.e., PFA kit is more expensive than CRYO kit), and similarly, up to a price difference of +€1,306 vs RFA. Above these thresholds, PFA would be considered cost-effective vs CRYO or RFA, due to its efficacy despite being more expensive. Conclusion In summary, PFA emerges as cost-effective or even cost-saving over CRYO and RFA, thanks to its faster execution, lower redo, and complications rate. Moreover, PFA time predictability would facilitate hospital planning. For a complete analysis, these benefits should be evaluated against the difference in acquisition costs among treatments.Procedural time by phase and techniqueCumulative savings per technique

Cost-consequence analysis of computer vision-based skin prick tests: implications for cost containment in Switzerland

BackgroundSkin prick tests (SPTs), or intraepidermal tests, are often the first diagnostic approach for people with a suspected allergy. Together with the clinical history, SPTs allow doctors to draw conclusions on allergies based on the sensitization pattern. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential cost consequences that would accrue to a Swiss University hospital after the adoption of computer vision-based SPTs.MethodsWe conducted a cost-consequence analysis from a hospital’s perspective to evaluate the potential cost consequences of using a computer vision-based system to read SPT results. The patient population consisted of individuals who were referred to the allergology department of one of the five university hospitals in Switzerland, Inselspital, whose allergology department averages 100 SPTs a week. We developed an early cost-consequence model comparing two SPT techniques; computer vision-based SPTs conducted with the aid of Nexkin DSPT and standard fully manual SPTs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and additional univariate sensitivity analyses were used to account for uncertainty.ResultsThe difference in average cost between the two alternatives from a hospital’s perspective was estimated to be CHF 7 per SPT, in favour of the computer vison-based SPTs. Monte Carlo probabilistic simulation also indicated that SPTs conducted using the computer vision-based system were cost saving compared to standard fully manual SPTs. Sensitivity analyses additionally demonstrated the robustness of the base case result subject to plausible changes in all the input parameters, with parameters representing the costs associated with both SPT techniques having the largest influence on the incremental cost. However, higher sensitization prevalence rates seemed to favour the more accurate standard fully manual SPTs.ConclusionAgainst the backdrop of rising healthcare costs especially in Switzerland, using computer-aided or (semi) automated diagnostic systems could play an important role in healthcare cost containment efforts. However, results should be taken with caution because of the uncertainty associated with the early nature of our analysis and the specific Swiss context adopted in this study.

Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

A cost-consequence analysis comparing three cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Background and aims Cardiac ablation is a well-established method for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal therapeutic alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CRYO). PFA uses high-voltage electric pulses to target cells. The present analysis aims to quantify the costs, outcomes, and resources associated with these three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF. Methods Real-world clinical data were prospectively collected during index hospitalization by three European medical centers (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands) specialized in cardiac ablation. These data included procedure times (pre-procedural, skin-to-skin and post-procedural), resource use, and staff burden. Data regarding complications associated with each of the three treatment options and redo procedures were extracted from the literature. Costs were collected from hospital economic formularies and published cost databases. A cost-consequence model from the hospital perspective was built to estimate the impact of the three treatment options in terms of effectiveness and costs. Results Across the three centers, N = 91 patients were included over a period of 12 months. A significant difference was seen in pre-procedural time (mean ± SD, PFA: 13.6 ± 3.7 min, CRYO: 18.8 ± 6.6 min, RFA: 20.4 ± 6.4 min; p < .001). Procedural time (skin-to-skin) was also different across alternatives (PFA: 50.9 ± 22.4 min, CRYO: 74.5 ± 24.5 min, RFA: 140.2 ± 82.4 min; p < .0001). The model reported an overall cost of €216,535 per 100 patients treated with PFA, €301,510 per 100 patients treated with CRYO and €346,594 per 100 patients treated with RFA. Overall, the cumulative savings associated with PFA (excluding kit costs) were €850 and €1,301 per patient compared to CRYO and RFA, respectively. Conclusion PFA demonstrated shorter procedure time compared to CRYO and RFA. Model estimates indicate that these time savings result in cost savings for hospitals and reduce outlay on redo procedures. Clinical practice in individual hospitals varies and may impact the ability to transfer the results of this analysis to other settings.

Cost consequence model of the MammaPrint (70-gene signature) and 21-gene signature in patients with primary HR+HER2-, N1 early-stage breast cancer in Germany.

534 Background: The MammaPrint 70-gene and Oncotype DX 21-gene signatures serve to stratify breast cancer tumors, distinguishing between those with low or high risk of distant metastasis. Patients with a low genomic risk tumor have the option to avoid overtreatment by omitting chemotherapy and minimize associated toxicities. This analysis evaluates the economic impact of implementing MammaPrint, Oncotype DX (ODx), or no gene signature testing for patients with HR+ HER2- early breast cancer with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes (N1) in Germany. Methods: We constructed a cost-consequence model to assess the budget implications of MammaPrint, ODx, and not employing a gene signature, considering both the healthcare payers and societal perspective. The model focuses on patients with HR+/HER2-/N1 breast tumors who, in the absence of a gene expression analysis, would receive chemotherapy in 63% of cases according to the data of the certified breast cancers in Germany. Input data were sourced from MINDACT, RxPONDER, literature, the EBM, the DRG system. The healthcare payer perspective covers testing, direct/indirect costs of chemotherapy, and disease recurrence costs. The societal perspective adds transport costs and productivity losses to these. Results: A projected 9,207 HR+/HER2-/N1 breast cancer patients were candidates for genomic testing. In MINDACT, patients were classified as MammaPrint Low Risk in 73% of cases, and in RxPONDER 83% of patients were categorized as ODx Low Risk (RS 0-25). The model demonstrated per patient savings from a healthcare payer perspective of €3.766 for MammaPrint and €900 for ODx compared to not using any gene signature for N1 breast cancer patients in Germany. Importantly, the savings are even more substantial from a societal perspective, reaching €11.815 for MammaPrint and €11.243 for ODx. When limiting the population to women &gt;50 years, similar results were observed with per patient savings from a payer perspective of €3.766 and €1.549, and from a societal perspective of €9.826 and €9.349, for MammaPrint and ODx, respectively. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that personalized treatment planning with genomic testing for breast cancer with HR+/HER2-/LN1 breast cancer, leads to a reduction in chemotherapy use and associated costs in Germany. Although MammaPrint designates a smaller proportion of genomically high risk patients compared to ODx, MammaPrint Low Risk patients without chemotherapy demonstrate higher survival outcomes. Consequently, any increased chemotherapy costs are offset by lower testing and distant recurrence expenses, making MammaPrint a cost-conscious option.

A cost-consequence model of using the 21-gene assay to identify patients with early-stage node-positive breast cancer who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in the Netherlands

Background Patients with early-stage hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative invasive breast cancer with 1–3 positive lymph nodes (N1) often undergo surgical excisions followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Many patients have no benefit from ACT and receive unnecessary, costly treatment often associated with short- and long-term adverse events (AEs). Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays, such as the 21-gene assay (i.e. the Oncotype DX assay), can identify patients at higher risk for recurrence who may benefit from ACT. However, the budgetary consequence of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing in the Netherlands is unknown. Our study therefore assessed it using a cost-consequence model. Methods A validated model was used to create the N1 model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing and MammaPrint, and subsequent ACT use with corresponding costs for chemotherapy, treatment of AEs, productivity losses, GEP testing, and treatment of recurrences, according to the Oncotype DX results. The model time horizon was 5 years. Results Costs for the total population amounted to €8.0 million (M), €16.2 M, and €9.5 M, and cost per patient amounted to €13,540, €27,455, and €16,154 for using the Oncotype DX assay, no GEP testing, and MammaPrint, respectively. Total cost savings of using the Oncotype DX assay amounted to €8.2 M versus no GEP testing and €1.5 M versus MammaPrint. Using the Oncotype DX assay would result in fewer patients receiving ACT and thus fewer AEs, sick days, and hospitalizations, leading to overall cost savings compared with no GEP testing and MammaPrint. Conclusions Implementing Oncotype DX testing in this population can prevent unnecessary overtreatment, reducing clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

A Cost-Consequence Analysis Comparing Balloon-Expandable Covered Stents for the Management of Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease.

To compare procedural and long-term costs associated with the use of Balloon-Expandable Covered Stents (BECS) in the management of Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease (AIOD). A cost-consequence model was developed to simulate the intra- and post-operative management of patients with AIOD from the perspective of private health-payers. The study assessed the costs of the LifeStream (BD, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey), iCAST/Advanta V12 (Getinge, Goteborg, Sweden), BeGraft Peripheral (Bentley, Hechingen, Germany), and Viabahn Balloon Expandable (VBX) (W.L. Gore, Flagstaff, Arizona) BECS devices. Device costs were identified from the Australian Prosthesis List, whereas clinical outcomes of BECS were estimated from a systematic review of the literature. Costs were calculated over 24 and 36 month time horizons and reported in US dollars. Long-term, per-patient cost of each device at 24 and 36 months was $6253/$6634 for the LifeStream; $6359/$6869 for the iCAST/Advanta V12; $4806 (data available to 24 months) for the BeGraft Peripheral; and $4839/$5046 for the Viabahn VBX, respectively. Most of the cost difference was attributed to the number of stents required per treated limb and frequency of clinically-driven target lesion revascularization events. Best-available clinical evidence and economic modeling demonstrates that the BeGraft Peripheral and Viabahn VBX were of similar cost and the least costly options at 24 months, whereas at 36 months, the lowest cost BECS option for the treatment of AIOD was the Viabahn VBX. This analysis supports economically informed decision-making for health-payers managing systems that care for patients with AIOD. Stent length and avoiding reintervention were identified as key areas of cost-saving for future BECS development.

A cost-consequence analysis of the Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test strategy for the diagnosis of influenza-like illnesses

Aims Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) affect millions each year in the United States (US). Determining definitively the cause of symptoms is important for patient management. Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Xpert Xpress) is a rapid, point-of-care (POC), multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test intended for the simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The objective of our analysis was to develop a cost-consequence model (CCM) demonstrating the clinico-economic impacts of implementing PCR testing with Xpert Xpress compared to current testing strategies. Methods A decision tree model, with a 1-year time horizon, was used to compare testing with Xpert Xpress alone to antigen POC testing and send-out PCR strategies in the US outpatient setting from a payer perspective. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000,000 members was modeled, a portion of whom develop symptomatic ILIs and present to an outpatient care facility. Our main outcome measure is cost per correct treatment course. Results The total cost per correct treatment course was $1,131 for the Xpert Xpress strategy compared with a range of $3,560 to $5,449 in comparators. POC antigen testing strategies cost more, on average, than PCR strategies. Limitations Simplifying model assumptions were used to allow for modeling ease. In clinical practice, treatment options, costs, and diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity may differ from what is included in the model. Additionally, the most recent incidence and prevalence data was used within the model, which is not reflective of historical averages due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Conclusion The Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test allows for rapid and accurate diagnostic results, leading to reductions in testing costs and downstream healthcare resource utilization compared to other testing strategies. Compared to POC antigen testing strategies, PCR strategies were more efficient due to improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced use of confirmatory testing.

Assessment of clinical and economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the United States

AimThe objective in this study was to assess the clinical and economic implications of the inclusion of rivaroxaban as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the United States (US).MethodsA cost-consequence model was adapted to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from multiple sources: efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban + aspirin vs. aspirin alone were abstracted from COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized clinical trials; the prevalence of chronic and symptomatic PAD and incidence rates of clinical events (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], major adverse limb events [MALE], and major bleeding), were abstracted from the analysis of claims data; healthcare costs of clinical events and wholesale acquisition costs for rivaroxaban were abstracted from the literature and Red Book, respectively (2022 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted.ResultsOver one year, with a 5% uptake of rivaroxaban, the model estimated rivaroxaban + aspirin to reduce 21 MACE/MALE events in the PAD patient population. The reduction in these clinical events offsets the increased risk of major bleeding (16 additional events), demonstrating a positive health benefit of the rivaroxaban addition. These benefits led to a $0.27 incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) to a US plan. The major driver of the incremental cost was the cost of rivaroxaban. In a subgroup of patients with the presence of any high-risk factor (heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, or history of vascular disease affecting two or more vascular beds), the incremental PMPM cost was $0.13.ConclusionsRivaroxaban + aspirin was found to provide positive net clinical benefit on the annual number of MACE/MALE avoided, with a modest increase in the PMPM cost.

Cost-consequence analysis of penile prosthesis implantation in outpatient setting in Spain

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of penile prosthesis (PP) implantation in an outpatient setting compared to its implantation in an inpatient setting in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Methods A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the total cost per patient (€, 2021) of PP implantation in the outpatient or inpatient setting and the total cost in a hypothetical future scenario in which the annual percentage of patients implanted in an outpatient setting could reach 50% (n = 349) to 70% (n = 488). Consequences included health resource consumption, total time gained/per patient and bed occupation. Results PP implantation in the outpatient vs inpatient setting resulted in cost savings of €962/per patient and 1 hospital bed day per procedure. Increasing the percentage of patients implanted in outpatient setting to 50% and 70% could generate annual savings of €279,657 and €413,785, respectively, compared to the current scenario (8.3% PP implantation in the outpatient setting). If the patients currently undergoing surgery in the inpatient setting underwent surgery in the outpatient setting, 328 additional patients/per year could be admitted. Conclusions PP implantation in the outpatient setting has been shown to have similar outcomes and to yield cost savings compared to inpatient surgery within the Spanish NHS.

Treatment switch to nonacog beta pegol factor IX in hemophilia B: A Canadian cost-consequence analysis based on real-world factor IX consumption and clinical outcomes

BackgroundThe Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry (CBDR) is a source of real-world data for Canadian patients with hemophilia B. Nonacog beta pegol (N9-GP), an extended half-life (EHL) recombinant factor IX (FIX) concentrate, was awarded a Canadian Blood Services contract in 2018 and subsequently made available across Canada (except Québec) to adult patients. For most patients already on another EHL FIX treatment, a switch to N9-GP occurred. ObjectivesThis study estimates the impact on treatment costs of a switch from a prior FIX to N9-GP based on annualized bleed rates and FIX consumption volumes before and after N9-GP switch from the CBDR. MethodsReal-world data from the CBDR for total FIX consumption and annualized bleed rates were used to inform a deterministic 1-year cost-consequence model. The model considered that the EHL to N9-GP switches were from eftrenonacog alfa and the standard half-life switches were from nonacog alfa. Because FIX prices are confidential in Canada, the model assumed cost parity for annual prophylaxis with each FIX based on the product monograph recommended dosing regimen to calculate an estimated price per international unit for each product. ResultsThe switch to N9-GP resulted in improvements in real-world annualized bleed rates and therefore reductions in annual breakthrough bleed treatment costs. Switching to N9-GP also resulted in reduced real-world annual FIX consumption for prophylaxis. Overall, annual treatment costs were 9.4% and 10.5% lower after the switch to N9-GP from nonacog alfa and eftrenonacog alfa, respectively. ConclusionN9-GP improves clinical outcomes and may be cost-saving vs nonacog alfa and eftrenonacog alfa.

Early Treatment with Fluvoxamine among Patients with COVID-19: A Cost-Consequence Model.

To date, two published randomized trials have indicated a clinical benefit of early treatment with fluvoxamine versus placebo for adults with symptomatic COVID-19. Using the results of the largest of these trials, the TOGETHER trial, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to assess the health system benefits of preventing progression to severe COVID-19 in outpatient populations in the United States. A decision-analytic model in the form of a decision tree was constructed to evaluate two treatment strategies for high-risk patients with confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in the primary analysis: treatment with a 10-day course of fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily) and current standard-of-care. A secondary analysis comparing a 5-day course of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also conducted. We used a time horizon of 28 days. Reported outcomes included cost-savings and hospitalization days avoided. The results of our analysis indicated that administration of fluvoxamine to symptomatic outpatients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 was substantially cost-saving, in the amount of $232 per eligible patient and prevented an average of 0.15 hospital days per patient treated, compared with standard of care. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was also shown to be cost-saving despite its higher acquisition cost and provided savings to the healthcare system of $625 per patient treated. These findings suggest that fluvoxamine is likely to be a cost-effective addition to frontline COVID-19 mitigation strategies in many settings, particularly where access to nirmaltrevir-ritonavir or monoclonal antibodies is limited.

EE50 A Cost-Consequence Model of Using the 21-Gene Breast Recurrence Score Assay to Identify Patients With Early-Stage Node-Positive Breast Cancer Who Benefit From Adjuvant Chemotherapy in the Netherlands

Patients with early-stage (I/II/IIIa) hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative invasive breast cancer with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (N1) often undergo surgical excisions followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Many of these patients, e.g., post-menopausal women, have no benefit from ACT and receive unnecessary treatment that is costly and often associated with short and long-term adverse effects (AEs). Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays, such as the 21-gene breast recurrence score® (21-gene), can be used to identify patients at higher risk for recurrence and who may benefit from ACT. However, the budgetary consequence of using 21-gene versus no GEP in the Netherlands is currently unknown and therefore here assessed using a cost-consequence model.

Moving preinduction cervical ripening to a lower acuity inpatient setting using the synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator: a cost-consequence analysis for the United States

Background Leveraging the safety profile of the synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator (SHCD), one potential way to reduce the burden-of-care provision in the labor-and-delivery unit without compromising safety is to introduce a low-acuity care room (ripening room) for patients undergoing cervical ripening as a part of labor induction at term. Methods Implementing a ripening room using SHCDs was compared to scenarios using prostaglandins including a dinoprostone insert (PGE2 insert) or gel (PGE2 gel) and misoprostol given orally (oral PGE1) or vaginally (vaginal PGE1). A theoretical, cost-consequence model was developed to assess costs, staff time, and selected clinical outcomes related to cervical ripening. The model assessed a hypothetical cohort where patients remained in hospital from admission for induction of labor (IOL) to delivery, taking the US labor-and-delivery unit perspective. Model inputs were taken from structured searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov, published US guidance, and clinical practice. Results are presented as mean (95% credible interval [CrI]). Results The ripening room using SHCDs cost US$3,210 and required 10.22 hours (h) of nurse time on average per patient. The cost difference to prostaglandins ranged from −$894 (−$2,269 to $398) for PGE2 gel to +$460 (−$1,467 to $1,539) for vaginal PGE1. Mean nurse time was shorter than all prostaglandins, with time savings ranging from −7.05 (−24.55 to 5.73) h for PGE2 insert to −0.97 (−14.69 to 9.59) h for vaginal PGE1. When outcomes of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were ranked from 1 (best) to 5 (worst), the ripening room using SHCDs ranked 1.94 for costs and 1.97 for nurse time. In a nulliparous population, results improved for the ripening room using SHCDs relative to all prostaglandins. Conclusion In this theoretical study, implementing a ripening room using SHCDs resulted in the lowest time burden and the second lowest costs. The cheapest option for preinduction cervical ripening was vaginal misoprostol.

Health Economics of Selective Early Rescue Surfactant Administration and Standard Surfactant Administration for Newborns With Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

To quantify the effect of early rescue surfactant administration techniques for preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) from a health care delivery system perspective. A cost-consequence model was developed based on previously published literature to compare the health economic impact of implementing early surfactant administration strategies vs standard surfactant administration via endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (MV). Early rescue surfactant treatment strategies are associated with a decrease in the number of patients requiring MV, cumulative MV days, and rate of neonatal complications. Total annual surfactant costs are higher than standard surfactant administration, but this is offset by savings in total hospital and complication costs. This cost-consequence analysis suggests selective early rescue surfactant administration strategies are associated with a lower health care burden in premature infants with RDS.

Cost and Clinical Benefits Associated with Oncotype DX® Test in Patients with Early-Stage HR+/HER2- Node-Negative Breast Cancer in the Netherlands

Objectives Patients with early-stage HR+/HER2- N0 breast cancer may receive adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with surgery. However, chemotherapy does not always lead to improved survival and incurs high healthcare costs and increased adverse events. To support decision-making regarding adjuvant chemotherapy, genomic profile testing performed with tests such as the Oncotype DX® test can help healthcare practitioners decide whether chemotherapy provides any benefit to these patients. As such, a cost-consequence model was developed with the aim to estimate the economic impact of using different gene expression tests or no testing, in patients with node-negative early-stage breast cancer. Methods A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the economic impact of three different scenarios in the Dutch setting: (1) Oncotype DX® test, (2) MammaPrint®, and (3) and no genomic profile testing. The model included chemotherapy costs, administration costs, short- and long-term adverse event costs, productivity loss, genomic profiling testing costs, cost of cancer recurrence, and hospitalization costs. Results A treatment paradigm with Oncotype DX resulted in average savings per patient of €6,768 vs. a paradigm with MammaPrint and €13,125 vs. a paradigm with no genomic testing. Furthermore, due to less patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy through better targeting by the Oncotype DX test, fewer adverse events, sick days, practice visits, and hospitalizations were required compared to MammaPrint and no genomic profiling. Conclusions Testing with Oncotype DX test in Dutch clinical practice in patients with early-stage breast cancer proved to be cost-saving versus MammaPrint and no genomic profiling tests. Introducing the Oncotype DX test to the Dutch setting will likely reduce the economic resources that are required.

Synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour: A UK cost-consequence model

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs of synthetic osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) compared to dinoprostone vaginal inserts (Propess) for inpatient induction of labour (IOL). Study designA population-level, Markov model-based cost-consequence analysis was developed to compare the impact of using Dilapan-S versus Propess. The time horizon was modelled from admission to birth. The target population was women requiring inpatient IOL from 37 weeks with an unfavourable cervix in the UK. Mean population characteristics reflected those of the SOLVE (NCT03001661) trial. No patient data were included in this analysis. The care pathways and staff workload were modelled using data from the SOLVE trial and clinical experience. Cost and clinical inputs were sourced from the SOLVE trial and peer-reviewed literature. Costs were inflated to 2020 British pounds (GBP, £). Outcomes were reported as an average per woman for total costs and required staff time (minutes) from admission for IOL until birth. The model robustness was assessed using a probabilistic, multivariate sensitivity analysis of 2,000 simulations with results presented as the median (interquartile range, IQR). ResultsDilapan-S was cost neutral compared to Propess. Midwife and obstetrician times were decreased by 146 min (−11%) and 11 min (−54%), respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that in 78% of simulations, use of Dilapan-S reduced midwife time with a median of −160 min (IQR −277 to −24 min). Costs were reduced in 54% of simulations (median -£33, IQR -£319 to £282). ConclusionsThe model indicates that adoption of Dilapan-S is likely to be cost-neutral and reduce staff workload in comparison to Propess. Results require support from real-world data and further exploration of Dilapan-S is to be encouraged.

Costs and Clinical Consequences of Compliance with COPD GOLD Recommendations or National Guidelines Compared with Current Clinical Practice in Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United States.

PurposeThe objective of this study was to assess the clinical and cost benefits of treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) according to global and national guidelines compared to real-life clinical practice in the United States and three European countries (Belgium, Germany, Sweden).Patients and MethodsA cost-consequence model was developed to compare current prescribing patterns with two alternative scenarios, the first aligned with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2022) recommendations and the second with national guidelines. Costs and clinical outcomes were modeled for these alternative scenarios over a time horizon of one year, based on real-world evidence and health insurance data.ResultsCurrent clinical practice in each of the countries was inconsistent with published recommendations. A redistribution to prescribing patterns according to global and national recommendations led to a substantial decrease in the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing therapies of more than 80% and 44%, respectively. There was a reduced incidence of up to 16% of mild-to-moderate pneumonia and up to 29% of severe pneumonia. Exacerbations decreased across all countries apart from Sweden, where a small increase in the rate of exacerbations was due to the redistribution of some patients currently undergoing inhaled triple therapy to non-ICS-containing therapies. Adapting treatment to recommendations could provide potential cost savings of up to 13% in estimated annual direct costs, resulting predominantly from the reduction in cost of healthcare resource use, including hospitalization associated with treating incident pneumonia, particularly severe pneumonia. Cost savings for prevalent adult patients with COPD on long-acting inhaler therapy ranged from €31 to €675 per patient per year.ConclusionRedistribution of COPD patients from current clinical practice to treatment according to published recommendations would provide clinical benefits and substantial cost savings.

Costs and Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Posterior Capsule Opacification After Cataract Surgery with Five Different Intraocular Lenses: An Economic Analysis for Spain

PurposeTo estimate the economic impact of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser capsulotomy and its related complications for five different intraocular lenses (IOLs) from the payer and hospital perspectives in Spain.Materials and MethodsThe three-year incidence rates of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy after cataract surgery with five different single-piece acrylic monofocal IOLs (AcrySof IOLs, AJL LLASY60, IOL Tech Stabibag, Medicontur Bi-flex, Zeiss Asphina) for 8293 patients were derived from odds ratios of multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, and diabetic retinopathy. A cost-consequence model for a hypothetical cohort of 2000 eyes was then developed to quantify the potential impact of Nd:YAG capsulotomy in terms of costs and time for each of the included IOLs, from the payer and hospital perspectives.ResultsThe adjusted three-year Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy incidence was 5.0% (95% CI 3.9 to 6.1) for AcrySof and ranged from 26.0% to 44.0% for the other four IOLs. The average costs of Nd:YAG treatment and related complications were €261.90 for payers and €19.99 for hospitals. The average time needed for Nd:YAG treatment and related complications was 32.82 minutes. Model estimates based on 2000 hypothetical cataract surgeries showed that AcrySof IOLs could lead to cost savings between €110,259.90 and €205,591.50 for payers. For hospitals, time, and cost savings with AcrySof ranged from 230.29 hours and €8415.79 compared to Zeiss Asphina to 429.40 hours and €15,692.15 compared to AJL LLASY60 IOLs.ConclusionPost cataract surgery, AcrySof IOLs were associated with a significantly lower incidence of Nd:YAG treatment and its subsequent complications compared to other IOLs. Our analysis shows that IOL choice is an important factor that can reduce the burden for patients, payers, and hospitals.

POSB97 Cost-Consequence Model of Using Gene Expression Tests in Patients with Early Breast Cancer in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, patients with early-stage HR+/HER2-, N0 breast cancer may receive adjuvant chemotherapy in conjunction with surgery. Clinical data shows that chemotherapy does not always contribute to improved survival and is associated with relatively high healthcare expenditure and toxicity. Gene expression tests such as the Oncotype DX® test can support physicians in decision-making regarding whether chemotherapy provides added clinical benefit for the patient. This cost-consequence model aims to analyze the economic impact of testing with different gene expression tests and no testing in the Netherlands, for patients with early-stage breast cancer.