Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

ABSTRACT Objectives Recently, the IMmotion151 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and found that this combination led to longer progression-free survival. However, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Methods We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, using costs and utilities from the published studies. We set the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold at $150,000. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure that our results were robust. We performed a threshold analysis to explore a more appropriate price for atezolizumab. Results Our results found that although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $1,640,532/QALY, well above the WTP threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis results confirmed the robust of this conclusion. Based on the threshold analysis, for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to be cost-effective, the price of them would need to be reduced by 46.3% or more. Conclusions From the perspective of US payers, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is not cost-effective for mRCC patients. To make this combination cost-effective in the future, the price of atezolizumab and bevacizumab needs to be reduced.

Cost Effectiveness of Tremelimumab Plus Durvalumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the USA.

Treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA. A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model. In the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively. The STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.

Projected Cost Savings With Optimal Medication Adherence in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease Requiring Lipid-Lowering Therapy: A Multinational Economic Evaluation Study.

Poor adherence to chronic cardiovascular treatments can impede targeted clinical outcomes. This study estimates the potential benefits of improving adherence among patients with cardiovascular disease requiring secondary prevention in Mexico, Thailand, and China. We performed Markov model simulation for patients with cardiovascular disease in 3 countries from health care and societal perspectives over a lifetime horizon. Two scenarios were compared: (1) optimal adherence based on a meta-analysis of 51 randomized controlled trials and (2) status quo. The association between adherence and cardiovascular disease outcomes derives from a dose-response meta-analysis of 4 051 338 patients. Outcomes include the accumulated number of cardiovascular events and associated costs in 2022 US dollars, life years, and quality-adjusted life years. Optimal adherence could prevent 42 (95% credible interval [CrI], 29-56) cardiovascular events in Mexico, 34 (95% CrI, 24-50) in Thailand, and 63 (95% CrI, 43-89) in China per 1000 patients over a lifetime. Incremental effectiveness per patient was 0.60 (95% CrI, 0.47-0.74) life-years in Mexico, 0.68 (95% CrI, 0.37-0.94) quality-adjusted life years in Thailand, and 0.93 (95% CrI, 0.44-1.27) quality-adjusted life years in China. Cost savings from societal perspective amounted to $412 (95% CrI, $211-$723), $316 (95% CrI, $187-$541), and $700 (95% CrI, $355-$1144) per patient for Mexico, Thailand, and China, respectively. Findings remained cost saving in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Achieving optimal adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease requiring lipid-lowering therapy saves costs and improves health outcomes in Mexico, Thailand, and China. These findings support national health care systems implementing strategies to improve adherence in these countries.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab vs. monotherapy for third-line treatment of colorectal cancer

BackgroundThe combination of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and bevacizumab has demonstrated promising efficacy and safety in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab vs. trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy as a third-line treatment regimen for colorectal cancer within the Chinese healthcare system, providing an economic basis for clinical application.MethodsBased on data from the SUNLIGHT Phase III clinical trial, a dynamic Markov model was constructed with a cycle length of 4 weeks and a simulation duration of 10 years. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared with the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP = ¥268,200.00/QALY) to assess the economic viability of the treatment regimen. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results.ResultsThe cost of trifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab treatment (¥838,492.74) was higher than that of trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy (¥357,396.97), with greater health benefits (2.45 QALYs vs. 1.54 QALYs). The ICER was ¥527,577.36/QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that drug costs and utility values during the progression-free period significantly impacted model outputs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis further confirmed the robustness of the results, showing that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥494,000.00, the probability of the combined treatment being cost-effective was 50%.ConclusionTrifluridine/tipiracil combined with bevacizumab, as a third-line treatment for colorectal cancer, does not have a cost-effectiveness advantage compared to trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy in economic evaluations.

Field therapies for actinic keratosis: an Australian cost‐effectiveness analysis

AbstractBackgroundActinic keratoses have a high prevalence in the older Australian population, with most patients presenting with field actinic damage. Despite this high prevalence, no field therapies are subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.ObjectivesTo determine which therapy for field actinic damage is the most cost‐effective when comparing 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU), imiquimod (IMQ), and methyl‐aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL‐PDT) at 12 months post‐treatment.MethodsA decision tree was constructed using TreeAge Pro, representing the likely clinical trajectories of patients with field actinic damage treated with 5‐FU, IMQ, and MAL‐PDT. The cost‐effectiveness analysis was performed from the patient perspective, assuming an outpatient setting. Efficacy data was derived from a single‐blinded, multi‐centre prospective randomised control trial. Cost data were derived from Australian dermatology clinics and pharmacies. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results5‐FU was the most cost‐effective treatment. It was cheaper and more effective than all other treatments, with a cost‐effectiveness ratio of AU$201 per patient achieving ≥75% clearance in field actinic damage. The cost‐effectiveness ratios of IMQ, and MAL‐PDT were AU$940, and AU$8058 per patient achieving ≥75% clearance respectively. Both sensitivity analyses showed certainty in 5‐FU's dominance over the other treatments.Conclusions5‐FU is the most cost‐effective treatment option for Australian patients presenting with actinic field damage on the head area.

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies for mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in India and Brazil.

The economic value of new skin-based tests and blood-based interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for tuberculosis (TB) infection is not yet well-established. This study evaluates the cost and cost-effectiveness in two high-burden countries by comparing:(a) new skin-based tests(Diaskintest and Cy-Tb) with the purified protein derivative (PPD)-tuberculin test (TST);(b) IGRAs (Standard E TB-Feron ELISA (TBF))with approved IGRAs (QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-GP)and TSPOT.TB); and (c) the best performing skin-based test with the best performing IGRA) based on cost effectiveness. In this paper, we developed a decision tree model for India and Brazil from a health system perspective. To quantify the effect of parameter variability and uncertainty, we performed both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The study findings reveal that among skin-based tests, the Diaskintest is more cost-effective compared to TST-PPD at 22.6 USD and 41.0 USD per correctly diagnosed case of TB infection for Brazil and India, respectively. For blood-based assays, TSPOT.TB outperforms QFT-GP and TBF due to its lower cost and higher effectiveness. When compared with Diaskintest, TSPOT.TB has an incremental cost of approximately 8 USD and 6 USD for India and Brazil respectively but is more effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 74 USD and 55 USD for India and Brazil, respectively. In summary, while Diaskintest is potentially cost-saving when compared to TSPOT.TB in these two high-burden TB countries but the TSPOT.TB demonstrates higher effectiveness.

Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies.

Genomic risk stratification methods for myeloid malignancies have moved beyond conventional karyotyping and single gene approaches to better define disease behaviour. Next-generation sequencing has been established as the new standard-of-care tool to accurately define prognosis at diagnosis and guide therapy decisions. We aimed to determine the economic value of a 37-gene panel test for informing subsequent care for patients with intermediate-risk myeloid malignancies. We performed an exploratory cost-utility analysis of a 37-gene panel test to inform stem cell transplantation therapy in patients with myeloid malignancies in Queensland, Australia. Clinician surveys provided data on management choice with and without genomics information while both published and individual-level data were used for healthcare costs, quality of life, relapse rates and survival data. We used a decision-analytic cohort model with Markov chains and 5000 simulations to derive the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test input variation on the stability of the main findings. Over 10 years, the model predicted mean costs of AU$125,561 for the panel testing strategy and AU$117,045 for usual care, indicating an incremental cost of AU$8516 for panel testing. The corresponding mean QALYs were 4.52 for panel testing and 4.46 for usual care, producing a cost of AU$153,854 per QALY gained. In the Australian system, the likelihood that panel testing would be cost effective was <1 % and would have a more favourable cost-effective profile at a willingness-to-pay of AU$140,000 per QALY gained. Driven by small gains in survival and relapse rates following therapies, genomic panel sequencing for myeloid malignancies in people with intermediate-risk disease is unlikely to be cost effective in Australia.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing a Genotype-Guided De-Escalation Strategy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.

A genotype-guided P2Y12-inhibitor de-escalation strategy, switching acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients without a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel, has shown to reduce bleeding risk without affecting effectivity of therapy by increasing ischemic risk. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this personalized approach compared to standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus ticagrelor/prasugrel) in the Netherlands. We developed a one-year decision tree based on results of the FORCE-ACS registry, comparing a cohort of ACS patients who underwent genotyping with a cohort of ACS patients treated with standard DAPT. This was followed by a lifelong Markov model to compare lifetime costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for a fictional cohort of 1000 patients. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the Dutch healthcare system. A genotype-guided de-escalation strategy led to anincrease of 55.30 QALYs and saved €698,286 compared to standard DAPT based on a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the genotype-guided strategy was cost-saving in 93% and increased QALYs in 86% of simulations. The intervention remained cost-effective in the scenario where prices for all P2Y12-inhibitors were equalized. The genotype-guided strategy remained dominant in various other scenario and sensitivity analyses. A genotype-guided de-escalation strategy in patients with ACS was both cost-saving and yielded higher QALYs compared to standard DAPT, highlighting its potential for implementation in clinical practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03823547.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of V116, a 21-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine, in Vaccine-Naïve Adults Aged ≥ 65 Years in the United States.

Given the recent approval and recommendation of V116, a 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), in the United States(US), we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using V116 versus the 20-valent PCV(PCV20) or the 15-valent PCV(PCV15) in series with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) among adults aged ≥ 65years in the US who had never received a PCV previously. A static multi-cohort state-transition Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime incremental clinical and economic impact of V116 vs. PCV20 or PCV15 + PPSV23 from the societal perspective. All model inputs were based on published literature and publicly available databases and/or reports. Model outcomes included undiscounted clinical cases: invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), inpatient and outpatient non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP), post-meningitis sequelae (PMS), deaths from IPD and inpatient NBPP, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as well as the discounted total cost (in 2023 USD), which consisted of vaccine acquisition and administration costs, direct and indirect costs associated with the disease, and travel costs for vaccination. The final summary measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), reported as $/QALY gained. Three percent was used for the annual discounting rate. Based on the inputs and assumptions used, the results indicated that the V116 strategy prevented 27,766 and 32,387 disease cases/deaths and saved $239 million and $1.8 billion in total costs when compared to the PCV20andPCV15 + PPSV23 strategies, respectively, in vaccine-naïve adults aged ≥ 65years. The estimated ICERs were cost saving in both regimens (i.e., V116 vs. PCV20 or vs. PCV15 + PPSV23). The scenario analysis and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses also demonstrated the robustness of the qualitative results. These results demonstrated that using V116 in adults aged ≥ 65years in the US can prevent a substantial number of PD cases and deaths while remaining highly favorable economically over a wide range of inputs and scenarios.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer in Japan.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer presents considerable treatment challenges owing to its aggressive nature. Global guidelines have endorsed a full year of HER2-targeted therapy for early-stage breast cancer. However, previous cost-effectiveness analyses of dual HER2-targeted therapies have been limited. This study aimed to examine the cost effectiveness of dual HER2-targeted therapy for early-stage breast cancer within the Japanese healthcare system context. In the Markov model-based study, the cost effectiveness of dual anti-HER2 therapy, combining pertuzumab and trastuzumab, was assessed in comparison to trastuzumab monotherapy. Patients in whom treatment was initiated at a median age of 51 years were included. The study utilized quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as comparison units. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore variations in cost effectiveness, focusing on node-positive and node-negative patients. Both one-way deterministic and broader probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 samples were performed from the Japanese healthcare payers perspective. Dual HER2-targeted therapy led to 0.17 QALYs increment at an additional cost of $US15,289, resulting in an ICER of $US92,232 per QALY. In the subgroup of node-positive patients, the benefit of the dual HER2-targeted therapy was more pronounced, with an increase of 0.64 QALYs and an ICER of $US24,561 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model's susceptibility to changes in the transition probabilities from invasive disease-free survival to death, from invasive disease-free survival to first-line metastatic breast cancer, and to costs associated with pertuzumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that for node-positive patients, dual HER2-targeted therapy may be a cost-effective option. The economic viability of dual HER2-targeted therapy was most pronounced in patients with node-positive high-risk early breast cancer. This study highlights the potential of dual HER2-targeted therapy as a cost-effective addition for these cases.

Cost-Effectiveness of Temporary Financial Assistance for Veterans Experiencing Housing Instability

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partners with community organizations (grantees) across the US to provide temporary financial assistance (TFA) to vulnerable veterans through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. The goal of TFA for housing-related expenses is to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless. To assess the cost-effectiveness of the SSVF program with TFA vs without TFA as an intervention for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity. This study used a Markov simulation model to compare cost and housing outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of veterans enrolled in the SSVF program. Enrollees who are homeless receive rapid rehousing services, while those who are at risk of becoming homeless receive homelessness prevention services. The SSVF program with TFA for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity. The effectiveness measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model was parameterized using a combination of inputs taken from published literature and internal VA data. The model had a 2-year time horizon and a 1-day cycle length. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. The base case analyses found that the SSVF program with TFA was more costly ($35 814 vs $32 562) and yielded more QALYs (1.541 vs 1.398) than the SSVF program without TFA. The resulting ICER was $22 676 per QALY, indicating that TFA is the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. This ICER was $19 114 per QALY for veterans in the rapid rehousing component of the SSVF program and $29 751 per QALY for those in the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TFA was cost-effective in 8972 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (89.7%) for rapid rehousing and in 8796 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (88.0%) for homelessness prevention only. This economic evaluation suggests that TFA is a cost-effective approach (ie, yields improved health benefits at a reasonable cost) for addressing housing insecurity for veterans enrolling in the SSVF program. Future research could examine the cost effectiveness of large, nationwide housing interventions such as this one among subpopulations of veterans such as those with certain comorbidities including severe mental illness or substance use disorders, those with chronic diseases, or those experiencing long-term housing instability vs acute loss of housing.

Evaluating nivolumab plus gemcitabine–cisplatin’s cost-effectiveness for aUC in China

AimsAssessing the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab with Gemcitabine–Cisplatin for Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (aUC) treatment from the perspective of Chinese payers.MethodsA Markov model assessed economic outcomes, estimating health outcomes in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainties on the results.ResultsThe base-case analysis showed Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine–Cisplatin yielded 0.59 QALYs at an extra cost of $78,780.61, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of $133,526.46/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis highlighted Nivolumab’s cost as the key factor, while probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 0% chance of cost-effectiveness for Nivolumab plus Gemcitabine–Cisplatin in aUC treatment.ConclusionNivolumab plus Gemcitabine–Cisplatin is not cost-effective in the treatment of aUC.

Achieving successful gas plant construction: A risk modelling framework with quantitative risk-based approach to schedule management

The construction of gas plants often experiences delays caused by various factors, which can lead to significant financial and operational losses. This research aims to develop an accurate risk model to improve the schedule performance of gas plant projects. The model uses Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) and Monte Carlo simulation methods to identify and measure the risks that most significantly impact project schedule performance. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify the risk variables that may cause delays. The risk model, pre-simulation modeling, result analysis, and expert validation were all developed using a Focused Group Discussion (FGD). Primavera Risk Analysis (PRA) software was used to perform Monte Carlo simulations. The simulation output provides information on probability distribution, histograms, descriptive statistics, sensitivity analysis, and graphical results that aid in better understanding and decision-making regarding project risks. The research results show that the simulated project completion timeline after mitigation suggested an acceleration of 61–65 days compared to the findings of the baseline simulation. This demonstrates that activity-based mitigation has a major influence on improving schedule performance. This research makes a significant contribution to addressing project delay issues by introducing an innovative and effective risk model. The model empowers project teams to proactively identify, measure, and mitigate risks, thereby improving project schedule performance and delivering more successful projects.

Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Alectinib versus Platinum‐Based Chemotherapy in Resected ALK‐Positive Non‐Small‐Cell Lung Cancer in the Chinese Health Care System

ABSTRACTObjectivesThe ALINE trial demonstrated the superiority of alectinib over platinum‐based chemotherapy in resected Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Considering the high cost of alectinib, this study aimed to evaluate the economic value of alectinib compared to platinum‐based chemotherapy for treating early‐stage ALK‐positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.Materials and MethodsWe developed a five‐state Markov model with monthly cycles to estimate the lifetime costs, life‐years (LYs), quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per LY gained and per QALY gained. Costs were obtained from database, expert opinions and published literature, and utilities were primarily derived from a multicenter cross‐sectional study based on the Chinese population. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per year. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results.ResultsCompared to platinum‐based chemotherapy, alectinib increased total costs by $16,245 and provided gains of 2.02 LYs and 1.84 QALYs over a lifetime horizon. ICERs were $8,052/LY and $8,806/QALY. The ICER in terms of cost per QALY gained was most sensitive to the outcome discount rate. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 93% probability of alectinib being cost‐effective at a willing‐to pay (WTP) threshold of $12,367/QALY (1 GDP per capita), rising to 100% at $37,100/QALY (3 GDP per capita).ConclusionAlectinib appears to be the preferred cost‐effective option in the adjuvant treatment for Chinese patients with resected early‐stage ALK‐positive NSCLC.

Economic Evaluation of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec from Italian NHS Perspective.

Icodec, once-weekly basal insulin, aims to simplify therapy management by reducing injection frequency for diabetic patients. The efficacy and safety of icodec were evaluated in the ONWARDS clinical development program. This study evaluates icodec economic and quality of life impact from the Italian National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. A pharmacoeconomic study was developed to assess the once-weekly insulin icodec value, highlighting its potential to decrease needle use while improving adherence and quality of life. In the base case, a differential cost and cost-utility analysis over one year compared to once-daily insulin degludec were developed. Based on the comparison with degludec, a scenario analysis was planned between icodec and the mix of basal insulins available on the market. Economic evaluations included drug and administration costs, needles, and impact on adherence. The cost-utility analysis measured the utility associated with the weekly injection compared to the daily ones, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured as Δ€/ΔQALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). To assess the robustness of the results, a deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were carried out. At an annual cost 25% higher than degludec, considering the economic benefits generated by the needle use reduction (-€51.10) and adherence improvement (-€54.85), once-weekly icodec grants no incremental cost and even potential savings per patient. Furthermore, icodec reported a utility advantage (0.023). It achieved a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to degludec. The comparison with the mix of basal insulins also reported a cost-effectiveness profile. Sensitivity tests conducted confirmed the robustness of the findings, highlighting the key drivers of the analysis. Icodec represents a new therapeutic option to simplify basal insulin treatment. It also improves the patient's management and his quality of life, without increasing the economic burden for the Italian NHS, while guaranteeing an excellent cost-effectiveness profile.

A propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy versus craniotomy for brain tumor radiation necrosis.

Radiation necrosis is becoming an increasingly prevalent complication in patients with brain tumors given the growing utility of stereotactic radiosurgery in modern treatment paradigms. Magnetic resonance-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (MRgLITT) is a new minimally invasive modality that has exhibited an efficacy comparable to craniotomy in treating radiation necrosis. No studies to date have compared their cost-effectiveness despite the significant additional expenses associated with MRgLITT use. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MRgLITT versus craniotomy in patients with comparable presentations of radiation necrosis. The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried from 2011 to 2020 for patients with radiation necrosis and treated using craniotomy or MRgLITT. Admission charges and costs were inflation adjusted to 2020 $US. Surgical cohorts were propensity score-matched according to demographic, clinical, and admission characteristics. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses identified associations between type of intervention and outcomes. A semi-Markov model was created to simulate treatment with craniotomy versus MRgLITT. Cost, transition probabilities, and health state utilities were derived from the NIS, individual patient outcomes from multiple institutions, and prospectively collected quality-of-life data from a single institution and verified against other studies. Monte Carlo simulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness between the two modalities. In the designated study period, 2869 patients had been admitted with brain tumor radiation necrosis and were managed with neurosurgical intervention. After propensity score matching, MRgLITT, relative to craniotomy, was independently associated with a shorter length of stay (LOS; β = -1.81, p = 0.002), lower odds of complications (OR 0.18, p = 0.033), and higher odds of home discharge (OR 3.05, p = 0.041), but there was no difference in total admission costs between the two modalities (β = $6229, p = 0.081). On Monte Carlo simulation, patients treated with MRgLITT had a lower probability of disease (radiation necrosis or tumor) recurrence (13.5% vs 22.0%, p < 0.001) but an equivalent mortality risk (22.8% vs 22.3%, p = 0.429) compared to the patients treated with craniotomy at the 1-year follow-up. Over a 4-year time horizon, MRgLITT had an incremental cost of -$25,685 and incremental effectiveness of 0.14 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$183,464 per QALY relative to craniotomy. MRgLITT was a more cost-effective treatment strategy than craniotomy in the management of patients with brain tumor radiation necrosis. The cost-effectiveness of MRgLITT may be attributed to a shorter LOS, lower complication odds, and higher home discharge odds in the immediate postoperative period and a lower risk of disease recurrence over the long-term follow-up.

Cost–benefit analysis of mammography screening: the perspective of Nigerian healthcare providers

IntroductionThere is no national breast cancer screening implemented in Nigeria. The National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) has a goal of making screening services and early detection of cancer available for...

Atezolizumab monotherapy as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen (IPSOS): a cost-effectiveness analysis in the USA

ObjectiveThis study explores the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (IIIB/IV-NSCLC) ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy from a...

Cost-effectiveness of strengthening blood pressure classification in South Korea: comparing the 2017 ACC/AHA and KSH guidelines

BackgroundHypertension is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), with hypertension-related deaths increasing annually. While South Korea uses the Korean Society of Hypertension (KSH) guideline of 140/90 mmHg, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) updated their guidelines in 2017 to 130/80 mmHg. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of transitioning to the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines by estimating early treatment impacts and potential CVD risk reduction.MethodsA Markov state-transition simulation model with a 10-year horizon was used to estimate cost-effectiveness, focusing on strengthening target blood pressure. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) served as the measure of effectiveness. Cohorts of 10,000 individuals representing South Koreans in their 20s through 80s were compared in scenario analyses from the healthcare system perspective. A 4.5% annual discount rate was applied to costs and effectiveness. Primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was < KRW 30,000,000/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) addressed model input parameter uncertainties.ResultsThe base-case analysis showed an ICER value of KRW 1,328,395/QALY gained across all populations. ICER values increased with age, from − KRW 3,138,071/QALY for 20-year-olds to KRW 16,613,013/QALY for individuals over 80. The 60s age group showed the greatest benefit with an incremental QALY gain of 0.46. All scenarios had ICERs below the WTP threshold, with a PSA probability of 98.0% that strengthening blood pressure classification could be cost-effective.ConclusionsThis economic evaluation found that adopting the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines may result in early treatment, reduce the potential incidence of CVD events, and be cost-effective across all age groups. The study findings have implications for policymakers deciding whether and when to revise official guidelines regarding target blood pressure levels, considering the impacts on public health and budgetary concerns.

Cost-Effectiveness Study of Difamilast 1% for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adult Japanese Patients.

Difamilast has proven to be an effective treatment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in Japanese adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective. The analysis was conducted using a cost-effectiveness model from the Japanese public health-care perspective. This model had four health states ("clear," "mild," "moderate," and "severe") defined according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. The time horizon of the analysis was 1year. Because the analysis period was short, no discount rate was applied. The proportions of patients previously estimated by the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison were implemented in the model. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and outcomes, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All prices were stated in JPY at the price level from 2018 April to 2019 March. One-way sensitivity analysisand probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results. In the base case, the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo was JPY 827,054/QALY and JPY 1,518,657/QALY, respectively. The PSA showed that the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo had a 66.6% and 99.6% probability of being below the JPY 5 million/QALY threshold, respectively. The results suggest that difamilast 1% is a more cost-effective treatment option compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.