Search

Introduction: Cost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field., Methods: A probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses., Results: The mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively., Conclusion: IngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland., Funding: LEO Pharma.

Background: Cytokine therapy is currently used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Until recently, treatments with proven efficacy after the failure of first-line cytokine therapy were not available. In recent clinical trials, sunitinib has been associated with good response rates in patients with mRCC., Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line therapy for cytokine-refractory mRCC compared with current routine clinical practice in Finland (ie, best supportive care [BSC], including palliative biochemotherapy)., Methods: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib. Data were gathered from clinical trials, literature sources, and expert opinions, as well as from a local sample (n = 39) from 2 university hospitals in Finland. Clinical experts treating patients with mRCC in Finland provided the information on care practices of prescribing sunitinib. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care payer in Finland., Results: According to estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), 1 progression-free month gained cost euro4802 (2005 Euros); 1 life-year gained cost euro30,831; and 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost euro43,698, compared with BSC, in the treatment of mRCC. The expected mean cost in BSC was euro5543. When parameter uncertainty was considered, the probability of sunitinib being the more cost-effective choice of treatment was ~70% at the willingness-to-pay level of euro45,000/QALY gained., Conclusions: Based on the results of this cost-effectiveness analysis, sunitinib is potentially cost-effective as a second-line treatment of mRCC compared with the treatment currently practiced in Finnish hospitals. The ICER (euro/QALY gained) obtained in the present study was less than the value considered suitable for novel oncology treatments.

Objective: The main objective was to estimate the mean direct costs of warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Secondly, the costs of initiating warfarin treatment during a 60-day period and the impact of International Normalized Ratio (INR) and co-morbidities on costs were estimated. DESIGN AND DATA: The study was performed as a retrospective cohort study over a 12-month period in a Finnish communal health care setting. All AF patients aged 65 years or older (n = 250) with warfarin treatment were identified from the database of the health service district of an urban area. Patient specific information related to comorbidities, INR-control, complications and health care resource use were collected. Cost information was obtained from the Finnish national health care unit cost list., Methods: The effect of treatment balance and other background variables on treatment costs were evaluated using ordinary least squares regression (OLS), log-transformed OLS and generalized linear model (GLM). The mean costs were calculated on the basis of the different models and bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the mean costs., Results: The best fitting cost model was log-transformed OLS. The costs of warfarin treatment on the basis of the log-transformed model were 589.82 Euros (BCa 95% CI: 586.68-591.99) per patient compared to 616.00 Euros (BCa 95% CI: 579.98-652.96) obtained with the OLS-model. For the treatment initiation period, the mean costs were 263 Euros (BCa 95% CI: 218.90-314.71). Depending on the way that INR-control was defined, the mean costs were 95.27 Euros or 166.92 Euros higher for patients who were not in the defined INR-balance., Conclusions: The INR-control has a significant impact on the warfarin treatment costs. The choice of model influences the estimated mean costs. In addition, different models identify statistically significant effects between different background variables and costs.