Search

Background: Compared to treatment as usual (TAU), early psychosis intervention programs (EPI) have been shown to reduce mortality, hospitalizations and days of assisted living while improving employment status.Aims: The study aim was to conduct a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare EPI and TAU in Canada.Methods: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the 5-year costs and benefits of treating patients with a first episode of psychosis with EPI or TAU. EPI benefits were derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Canadian administrative data. The cost of EPI was based on a published survey of 52 EPI centers in Canada while hospitalizations, employment and days of assisted living were valued using Canadian unit costs. The outcomes of the CBA and CEA were expressed in terms of net benefit (NB) and incremental cost per life year gained (LYG), respectively. Scenario analyses were conducted to examine the impact of key assumptions. Costs are reported in 2019 Canadian dollars.Results: Base case results indicated that EPI had a NB of $85,441 (95% CI: $41,140; $126,386) compared to TAU while the incremental cost per LYG was $26,366 (95% CI: EPI dominates TAU (less costs, more life years); $102,269). In all sensitivity analyses the NB of EPI remained positive and the incremental cost per LYG was less than $50,000.Conclusions: In addition to EPI demonstrated clinical benefits, our results suggest that large-scale implementation of EPI in Canada would be desirable from an economic point of view . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation for rhythm control compared to antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have previously failed on an AAD. Methods. An economic model was developed to compare (1) catheter ablation and (2) AAD (amiodarone 200mg/day). At the end of the initial 12 month phase of the model, patients are classified as being in normal sinus rhythm or with AF, based on data from a meta analysis. In the 5-year Markov phase of the model, patients are at risk of ischemic stroke each 3-month model cycle. Results. The model estimated that, compared to the AAD strategy, ablation had $8,539 higher costs, 0.033 fewer strokes, and 0.144 more QALYS over the 5-year time horizon. The incremental cost per QALY of ablation compared to AAD was estimated to be $59,194. The probability of ablation being cost-effective for willingness to pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 was estimated to be 0.89 and 0.90, respectively. Conclusion. Based on current evidence, pulmonary vein ablation for treatment of AF is cost-effective if decision makers willingness to pay for a QALY is $59,194 or higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Diabetes mellitus is a major healthcare concern from both a treatment and a funding perspective. Although decision makers frequently rely on models to evaluate the long-term costs and consequences associated with diabetes interventions, no recent article has reviewed the methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatment. The following databases were searched up to April 2008 to identify published economic models evaluating treatments for diabetes mellitus: OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Thomson's Biosis Previews, NHS EED via Wiley's Cochrane Library, and Wiley's HEED database. Identified articles were reviewed and grouped according to unique models. When a model was applied in different settings (e.g. country) or compared different treatment alternatives, only the original publication describing the model was included. In some cases, subsequent articles were included if they provided methodological advances from the original model. The following data were captured for each study: (i) study characteristics; (ii) model structure; (iii) long-term complications, data sources, methods reporting and model validity; (iv) utilities, data sources and methods reporting; (v) costs, data sources and methods reporting; (vi) model data requirements; and (vii) economic results including methods to deal with uncertainty. A total of 17 studies were identified, 12 of which allowed for the conduct of a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis. Although most models were Markov-based microsimulations, models differed with respect to the number of diabetes-related complications included. The majority of the studies used a lifetime time horizon and a payer perspective. The DCCT for type 1 diabetes and the UKPDS for type 2 diabetes were the trial data sources most commonly cited for the efficacy data, although several non-randomized data sources were used. While the methods used to derive the efficacy data were commonly reported, less information was given regarding the derivation of the utilities or the costs. New interventions were generally deemed cost effective based on ten studies presenting results. Authors relied mostly on univariate sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of their models. Although diabetes is a complex disease, several models have been developed to predict the long-term costs and consequences associated with diabetes treatment. Combined with previous findings, this review supports the development of a reference case that could be used for any new diabetes models. Models could be enhanced if they had the capacity to deal with both first- and second-order uncertainty. Future research should continue to compare economic models for diabetes treatment in terms of clinical outcomes, costs and QALYs when applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this work was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) compared with oral prednisone as a treatment for Canadian adults with persistent chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Methods: The lifetime costs and effectiveness of IVIg and prednisone were estimated from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system in Canada, using a Markov model that was developed based on a systematic clinical and economic review and recommendations of clinical experts in Canada. Transition probabilities (ie, point estimates and 95% CIs) were estimated from the studies identified in a systematic literature review using a random-effect meta-analysis; point estimates were weighted-mean values from the meta-analysis. No published studies directly estimate the utility weight for patients with relapsed or refractory ITP; therefore, a value of 0.76 was used, based on the mean of the utilities for thrombocytopenia without major bleeding or hemorrhagic stroke. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported as year-2007 Can $. Results: The incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IVIg versus prednisone were Can $8080 and 0.0071, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Can $1.13 million/ QALY in the base-case analysis. The probability of IVIg being cost-effective was 0 if the maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) value for an additional QALY was below Can $40,000. The probability that IVIg would be cost-effective was only 20%, even if the WTP increased to Can $100,000. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) were 0 if the WTP was less than Can $30,000. If WTP increased to Can $100,000, the EVPI was Can $1700, and the EVPPI was Can $1010 for utility weights of relapse/refractory states, Can $136 for initial response rates of the treatments, and Can $6 for first-year relapse rates for the treatments. Conclusion: Based on the current available clinical evidence, this model analysis of hypothetical patients suggests that IVIg may not be a cost-effective option for adults with persistent chronic ITP in Canada. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The primary risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is rupture, which is associated with a high mortality rate. Elective surgical options for AAA include open repair (OR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). EVAR is less invasive than OR, and therefore may have less surgical risk than OR. However, the graft used for EVAR is much more expensive then the graft used for OR. Methods: A decision model with a 10-year time horizon was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVAR versus OR. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model incorporated the costs and benefits of both perioperative outcomes and postoperative outcomes. A systematic review was conducted to derive clinical outcome rates. Cost and utility model variables were based on various literature sources and data from a recent Canadian observational study. Parameter uncertainty was assessed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In the base-case model, the incremental cost per QALY of EVAR was estimated to be $268,337, whereas the incremental cost per life-year was found to be $444,129. The incremental cost per QALY of EVAR remained above $295,715 under different assumptions of cohort age and model time horizon. Conclusions: Based on commonly quoted willingness-to-pay thresholds, EVAR was not found to be cost-effective compared to OR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Undetected and untreated Chlamydia trachomatis infections can result in a significant health burden. Diagnostic testing refers to tests performed on patients with symptoms, whereas screening refers to testing specimens in asymptomatic patients. The goal of diagnostic testing and screening programs are early identification of infections to prevent upper tract infection and transmission to other partners.Goal: To compare the costs and outcomes of alternative diagnostic testing and screening programs for women ages 15 to 24 years in the province of Ontario, Canada.Study Design: Using outcome probabilities from the literature and a consensus group, together with the costs from insurance billing, a decision analytic model was constructed to determine the baseline risk of C trachomatis and related sequelae. Seven diagnostic testing and screening programs were compared over a 10-year period. The programs compared included the use of nucleic acid amplification assays collected from urine or endocervical swab specimens.Results: Largely because of lower sensitivity the urine-based testing or screening programs were dominated by the swab-based programs. The move from swab-based testing to a swab-based screening program for high-risk women costs $1873 per case of C trachomatis averted. Expanding the program further to include all women in Ontario between 15 and 24 years of age is considerably more costly at $5990 per case averted.Conclusions: It is more costly and more effective to screen and treat high-risk women ages 15 to 24 years for C trachomatis than to perform only swab-based diagnostic testing on symptomatic women. Expanding the screening program to include all women ages 15 to 24 years is considerably more expensive and only moderately more effective than screening only high-risk women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the evidence-based platforms for decision-making related to health care. The Ontario Ministry of Health's decision aims to improve the efficiency of health care delivery system and control rising health care costs. The Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute conducts conditionally funded field evaluations of health care technologies in Ontario. The article also highlights the health technology assessment process.

Objective: In this article, we compared the costs of testing meconium for alcohol exposure in newborns with the lifetime benefits of early detection and intervention. Method: A decision analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of testing meconium for two scenarios: (1) all infants in the Canadian province of Ontario and (2) infants who have an older sibling diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). The model incorporated the costs of early screening, early intervention, and the lifetime societal benefits of early intervention. Results: The cost of the meconium test is Can. $150. The lifetime societal cost of the disease is Can. $1.3 million per incident case. The benefit of early intervention is an improvement in literacy, which improves the quality of life parameter by 0.17 and increases adult lifetime earnings by $26,400 per year. The ratio of the incremental cost to the incremental benefits results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for mandating a universal screen of all newborns in Ontario of $65,874 per quality-adjusted life years. When considering targeted screening, there is a cost savings for society and improvements in quality of life. Conclusions: Depending on society's willingness-to-pay threshold for improving infants' lives in a setting of considerable equity concerns, universal screening and targeted screening of infants who have an older sibling diagnosed with FASD both represent policies that are good value for the money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]