Search

The EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) instrument is among the most used preference-based quality of life (QOL) measures for cost–utility analysis. Each dimension is evaluated on five levels. The aim of this study was to clarify whether the EQ-5D-5L, which consists of only five items, correlates with profile-based QOL measures in Japanese oral cancer patients during the perioperative period. One hundred participants with oral cancer undergoing radical therapy completed QOL assessments before treatment, at treatment completion, and 1 and 3 months after treatment using the EQ-5D-5L and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Head & Neck instrument (FACT-H&N, Japanese version). To clarify how the EQ-5D-5L reflects the FACT-H&N, multiple regression analyses were performed using FACT-H&N subscales. The ceiling effect of the EQ-5D-5L was investigated. The EQ-5D-5L moderately correlated with the FACT-H&N over the entire perioperative period (rs = 0.586, P

Purpose To calculate costs required to prevent center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), and to improve the diabetic retinopathy severity score (DRSS) with intravitreal anti-VEGF injections as reported for aflibercept in two randomized control trials. Design Cost-effectiveness analysis modeling based on published data Subjects None Methods Results from PANORAMA and the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network ( DRCR.net ) Protocol W were analyzed. Parameters collected included DRSS score, risk reduction of PDR, risk reduction of CI-DME, and number of treatments required. Costs were modeled based on 2020 Medicare reimbursement data practice settings of hospital-based facility and non-facility. Main Outcome Measure Cost to prevent case of PDR and CI-DME, and to improve DRSS stage Results Over 2 years in Protocol W, the cost required to prevent 1 case of PDR was $83,000 ($72,400) in the facility (non-facility) setting; in PANORAMA, the corresponding 2 year costs were $89,400 ($75,000) for the 2Q16 arm, and $91,200 ($89,900) for the 2Q8PRN arm. To prevent 1 case of CI-DME with vision loss in Protocol W, the cost was $154,000 ($133,000). For all CI-DME, with and without vision loss; in PANORAMA, the costs to prevent a case were $70,900 ($59,500) for the 2Q16 arm, and $90,000 ($88,800) for the 2Q8PRN arm. In Protocol W, the overall accumulated total for cost /DRSS unit change at the 2 year point for facility (non-facility) setting was $2700 ($2400)/DRSS. In the first year alone, it was $2100 ($1800)/DRSS and in the second year alone, $6100 ($5300)/DRSS. Conclusion There is a considerable cost associated with the prevention of PDR and CI-DME with intravitreal aflibercept injections. A price per unit of change in diabetic retinopathy severity score is a new parameter which might serve as a benchmark in future utility analyses that could be used to bring perspective to cost-utility considerations.

Objective: To conduct a stratified cost-utility analysis of total versus partial hip arthroplasty as a function of clinical subtype. Method: All cases of this type of intervention were analysed between 2010 and 2016 in the Basque Health Service, gathering data on clinical outcomes and resource use to calculate the cost and utility in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at individual level. The statistical analysis included applying the propensity score to balance the groups, and seemingly unrelated regression models to calculate the incremental cost-utility ratio and plot the cost-effectiveness plane. The interaction between age group and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) risk class was assessed in the multivariate analysis. Results: The study identified 5867 patients diagnosed with femoral neck fracture, of whom 1307 and 4560 were treated with total and partial hip arthroplasty, respectively. In the cost-utility analysis based on the seemingly unrelated regression, total hip arthroplasty was found to have a higher cost and higher utility (2465€ and 0.42 QALYs). Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22,000 per QALY, total hip arthroplasty was cost-effective in the under-80-year-old subgroup. Among patients above this age, hemiarthroplasty was cost-effective in ASA class I-II patients and dominant in ASA class III-IV patients. Conclusions: Subgroup analysis supports current daily clinical practice in displaced femoral neck fractures, namely, using partial replacement in most patients and reserving total replacement for younger patients. Resumen: Objetivo: Realizar un análisis de coste-utilidad de la prótesis total de cadera frente a la prótesis parcial. Método: Se analizaron todos los casos intervenidos desde 2010 hasta 2016 en el Servicio Vasco de Salud, recogiendo resultados clínicos y uso de recursos para calcular individualmente el coste y la utilidad en años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC). El análisis estadístico incluyó el pareamiento por puntaje de propensión para balancear los grupos y modelos de regresión aparentemente no relacionados para calcular la razón de coste-utilidad incremental y el plano de coste-efectividad. La interacción de grupo de edad y riesgo según la American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) se incluyó en el análisis multivariante. Resultados: Se identificaron 1307 pacientes con prótesis total y 4560 con prótesis parcial. Al hacer el análisis de coste-utilidad con modelos de regresión aparentemente no relacionados el resultado fue mayor coste y mayor utilidad para la prótesis total (2465 € y 0,42 AVAC). Para un umbral de 22.000 € por AVAC, la prótesis total fue coste-efectiva en el subgrupo de menores de 80 años. En el grupo de mayores de 80 años la parcial fue coste-efectiva en los casos con riesgo ASA I-II y dominante en los ASA III-IV. Conclusiones: El análisis de subgrupos ratifica la práctica clínica habitual en las fracturas de cuello de fémur desplazadas de intervenir a la mayoría de los pacientes mediante prótesis parcial y reservar la prótesis total para los pacientes más jóvenes.

Objectives To evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness between three different initial treatment strategies in autoantibody-negative RA patients, according to 2010 criteria. Methods For this analysis we selected all RA patients within the intermediate probability stratum of the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial. The tREACH had a treat-to-target approach, aiming for low DAS Results Average quality-adjusted life-years (s.d.), for iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs were respectively 0.71 (0.14), 0.73 (0.14) and 0.71 (0.15). The average total costs (s.d.) for iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs were, respectively, €10 832 (14.763), €11 208 (12.801) and €10 502 (11.973). Healthcare costs were mainly determined by biological costs, which were significantly lower in the iHCQ group compared with iGCs (P Conclusion iHCQ had the lowest healthcare and highest productivity costs, resulting in a non-significant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, iHCQ had the highest chance of being cost-effective at the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold for healthcare reimbursement. Therefore, we believe that iHCQ is a good alternative to iMTX in autoantibody-negative RA patients, but validation is needed. Clinical trial registration number ISRCTN26791028

Background Biologics are a good therapeutic option for severe, chronic plaque psoriasis; however, they come with significant cost to the health care system. Objective To conduct a cost-utility analysis of outpatient biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab) available to adults with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Methods A Markov cohort model was constructed to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs accrued for treatment pathways commencing with different first-line biologics, over a 96-week time horizon. The model adhered to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme eligibility criteria and guidelines. Results A biologic treatment pathway commencing on tildrakizumab was the most cost-effective first-line treatment (Australian dollar 39,930; total utility of 1.57 QALYs over 96 weeks). First-line secukinumab and risankizumab had incremental cost-utility ratios of Australian dollar 194,524/QALY and Australian dollar 479,834/QALY, respectively, when compared with first-line tildrakizumab. Limitations The efficacy and utility input parameters were derived from international randomized control trials and patients from the United Kingdom, respectively. Findings from this study cannot be generalized beyond Australia. Conclusion Tildrakizumab may be considered as first-line treatment for adult patients with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis embarking on biologic therapy, from the economic perspective of the Australian health care system.

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of breast reduction surgery for women with symptomatic breast hypertrophy in Australia. Design Cost-utility analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. Setting, participants Adult women with symptomatic breast hypertrophy assessed for bilateral breast reduction at the Flinders Medical Centre, a public tertiary hospital in Adelaide, April 2007 - February 2018. The control group included women with breast hypertrophy who had not undergone surgery. Main outcome measures Health care costs (for the surgical admission and other related hospital costs within 12 months of surgery) and SF-6D utility scores (measure of health-related quality of life) were used to calculate incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 months, extrapolated to a 10-year time horizon. Results Of 251 women who underwent breast reduction, 209 completed the baseline and at least one post-operation assessment (83%; intervention group); 124 of 350 invited women waiting for breast reduction surgery completed the baseline and 12-month assessments (35%; control group). In the intervention group, the mean SF-6D utility score increased from 0.313 (SD, 0.263) at baseline to 0.626 (SD, 0.277) at 12 months; in the control group, it declined from 0.296 (SD, 0.267) to 0.270 (SD, 0.257). The mean QALY gain was consequently greater for the intervention group (adjusted difference, 1.519; 95% CI, 1.362-1.675). The mean hospital cost per patient was $11 857 (SD, $4322), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the intervention was $7808 per QALY gained. The probability of breast reduction surgery being cost-effective was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY and 88% at $28 033 per QALY. Conclusions Breast reduction surgery for women with symptomatic breast hypertrophy is cost-effective and should be available to women through the Australian public healthcare system.

Background: Human cadaveric allograft (HCA) and costal cartilage autograft (CCA) have been described for reconstruction during rhinoplasty. Neither are ideal due to infection, resorption, and donor site morbidity. The clear superiority of 1 graft over the other has not yet been demonstrated. This study assesses comparative costs associated with current grafting materials to better explore the cost ceiling for a theoretical tissue engineered implant. Materials and methods: A cost utility analysis was performed. Initial procedure costs include physician fees (CPT 30420), hospital outpatient prospective payments, ambulatory surgical center payments, and fees for the following: rib graft (CPT 20910), hospital observation, and DRG (155) for inpatient admission. Additional costs for revision procedure, included the following fees: physician (CPT 30345), rib graft, hospital outpatient prospective payment, and ambulatory surgical center payments. Total costs under each scenario were calculated with and without the revision procedure. Comparison of total costs for each potential outcome to the estimated health utility value allowed for comparison across rhinoplasty subgroups. Results: The mean cost of primary outpatient rhinoplasty using HCA and CCA were $8075 and $8342 respectively. Revision outpatient rhinoplasty averaged $7447 and increased to $8228 if costal cartilage harvest was required. Hospital admission increased the cost of primary rhinoplasty with CCA to $8609 for observational admission and to $13653 for 1 day inpatient admission. Revision CCA rhinoplasty with an inpatient admission complicated by pneumothorax increased costs to $21 099. Conclusion: Cost of rhinoplasty without hospitalization was similar between HCA and CCA and this cost represents the lower limit of a practical cost for an engineered graft. Considering complications such as need for revision or for admission after CCA due to surgical morbidity, the upper limit of cost for an engineered implant would approximately double.

Objectives To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the first-line settings from a payer perspective. Methods A state-transition model with three health states was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained for pazopanib compared to sunitinib. A lifelong time horizon was adopted in the base-case analysis. The transition probabilities were estimated based on the COMPRAZ trial, utility weights were taken from literature, and costs were based on estimating medical resource utilization data at King Hussein Cancer Centre (KHCC), deriving unit cost inputs from KHCC databases and the Jordan Food and Drug Administration website. Both costs and outcomes were discounted using 3% rate. The model’s uncertainty was tested using a probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Key findings The base-case results showed that pazopanib was dominant when using the listed price for both medications. Pazopanib was associated with an incremental saving of −$10 721.55 and an incremental QALY of 0.08. The results were sensitive to utility values and the progression health state cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pazopanib being cost-effective compared to sunitinib is around 60–70% at KHCC cost-effectiveness threshold values. However, the result was reversed when the price of sunitinib was reduced by 40% making sunitinib the dominant strategy. Conclusions Pazopanib is a potential cost-effective option in the first-line settings for mRCC when the listed price of sunitinib is used. Therefore, price negotiations are recommended before final listing decisions to get the most cost-saving treatment.

Background Different approaches have been used by dentists to base their decision. Among them, there are the aesthetical issues that may lead to more interventionist approaches. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants—CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less-invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic approaches for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth and extrapolating these findings to a longer time horizon. Methods A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/NCT03520309), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children’s restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is 2 years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions (primary CEA analysis), the time to these new interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and changes in children’s oral health-related quality of life (secondary analyses). For CUA, the effect will be tooth-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Using Markov models, a longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon. Discussion The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after 2 years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, these trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such interventions. Trial registration NCT03520309. Registered May 9, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment.

Background Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death. Pharmacist-led medication review with follow-up might be cost-effective preventing cardiovascular diseases. Objective To undertake a cost–utility analysis of the addition of pharmacist-led medication review with follow-up to usual care compared to usual care alone for cardiovascular outpatients. Materials and methods A state-transition microsimulation model was built to project outcomes over a lifetime time horizon. Inputs from a cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in primary health care centers in Chile with full-time pharmacists were used. Probabilities were estimated using patient-level data. Utilities and costs associated with each health state were obtained from the literature, whereas the intervention costs were retrieved from the trial. The public third-party payer perspective was used. Uncertainty was evaluated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results For the base case analysis, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $963 per quality-adjusted life-year was observed which was considered cost-effective. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were driven by decreased cardiovascular events resulting in lower mortality. Conclusions Medication review with follow-up was deemed a cost-effective addition to usual care with low uncertainty.

Kanyarat Katanyoo,1,2 Usa Chaikledkaew,3,4 Montarat Thavorncharoensap,3,4 Arthorn Riewpaiboon3 1Social, Economic and Administrative Pharmacy (SEAP) Graduate Program, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 2Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand; 3Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 4Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandCorrespondence: Usa ChaikledkaewSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayudhaya Road, Bangkok, ThailandTel +662-644-8678 ext 5317Fax +662-644-8694Email usa.chi@mahidol.ac.thPurpose: We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests, ie, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET⁄CT) for para-aortic lymph node detection (PALND), in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients (stages IB3–IVA) with or without laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (LL) compared with no investigation (NoIx) based on provider and societal perspectives during 5 years.Patients and Methods: Hybrid decision tree and Markov models were conducted to compare the cost and utility of six interventions including: 1) CT without LL, 2) CT with LL, 3) MRI without LL, 4) MRI with LL, 5) PET/CT without LL, and 6) PET/CT with LL compared with NoIx. All clinical parameters were obtained from published studies. Costs were presented in year 2019 values. Direct medical costs were retrieved from hospital database, while direct non-medical costs and utility were collected from interviewing 194 LACC patients during June to December 2019. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to investigate parameter uncertainties.Results: Total costs of NoIx were $8026 and $11,444 from provider and societal perspectives, respectively, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 3.70. NoIx was more effective and less costly. When six strategies were compared with NoIx, more additional costs were shown with $1835, $1735, $2022, $1987, $4002, and $4176 for CT without LL, CT with LL, MRI without LL, MRI with LL, PET/CT without LL, and PET/CT with LL, whereas QALYs were decreased with 0.07, 0.08, 0.07, 0.08, 0.05, and 0.07, respectively. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the benefit of NoIx. The most significant parameter was treatment outcomes of patients with PALN metastasis.Conclusion: NoIx or receiving basic clinical staging was a dominant option when compared with CT, MRI, and PET/CT for PALND before providing the treatment for LACC patients.Keywords: cost-utility analysis, stage IIIC2 cervical cancer, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, PET/CT

Bhavani Shankara Bagepally,1,2 Usa Chaikledkaew,1,3 Sitaporn Youngkong,1,3 Thunyarat Anothaisintawee,1,4 Montarat Thavorncharoensap,1,3 Charungthai Dejthevaporn,5 Ammarin Thakkinstian1,6 1Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 2Department of Non-Communicable Diseases, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India; 3Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 4Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 5Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand; 6Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandCorrespondence: Usa ChaikledkaewSocial Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayudhaya Road, Phayathai, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, 10400, ThailandTel +662-644-8677 ext 5317Fax +662-644-8694Email usa.chi@mahidol.ac.thBackground: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a leading health issue, causing economic burden in India. Pharmacotherapy is a major cost driver in diabetic care usually funded through out of pocket expenditure; however, there has been a very limited economic evaluation evidence to guide the choice of diabetes pharmacotherapy in India. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitor) compared to commonly used sulfonylureas as second-line drugs in Indian patients with T2DM.Methods: Cost-utility analysis was employed to estimate the costs and health outcomes using a Markov model with 1-year cycle length during a lifetime horizon based on an Indian payer’s perspective. A treatment pathway with dapagliflozin as second-line therapy was compared to sulfonylureas after failure of initial metformin therapy. Clinical and cost data were collected from literature reviews and available secondary data sources. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. The results were presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test parameter uncertainties.Results: Compared to sulfonylurea, dapagliflozin was estimated to incur an additional cost of ₹182,632 (US$2,446) with an expected 3.49 life years (LY) or 1.72 quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained, resulting in an ICER of ₹52,270 (US$699) per LY gained, or ₹106,133 (US$1,421) per QALY gained. Uncertainty analyses showed that the ICER values were not sensitive to changes in most parameters.Conclusion: Dapagliflozin would be cost-effective compared to sulfonylureas as the second line added to metformin for T2DM patients based on an Indian payer’s perspective.Keywords: economic evolution, cost-effectiveness, sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, type 2 diabetes, India, glibenclamide, gliclazide

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a common cause of hospital admissions, readmissions, and mortality worldwide. Digital health interventions (DHIs) that promote self-management, adherence to guideline-directed therapy, and cardiovascular risk reduction may improve health outcomes in this population. The “Corrie” DHI consists of a smartphone application, smartwatch and wireless blood pressure monitor to support medication tracking, education, vital signs monitoring and care coordination. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this DHI plus standard care in reducing 30-day readmissions among AMI patients in comparison to standard care alone. METHODS: A Markov model was used to explore cost-effectiveness from the hospital perspective. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year, with 30-day cycles, using inflation-adjusted cost data with no discount rate. Currencies were quantified in US dollars and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life year (QALYs). The results were interpreted as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Univariate sensitivity and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty. RESULTS: The DHI reduced costs and increased QALYs on average, dominating standard care in 99.7% of simulations in the probabilistic analysis. Based on the assumption that the DHI costs $2,750 per patient, use of the DHI leads to a cost-savings of $7,319 per patient compared to standard care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that this DHI is cost-saving through the reduction of risk for all-cause readmission following AMI. DHIs that promote improved adherence with guideline-based healthcare can result in reduced hospital readmissions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03760796; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03760796

Aim We aim to determine the cost‐effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to standard therapy versus standard therapy alone among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) using the public healthcare provider's perspective in the Philippines. Methods and results A thousand Filipino patients with HFrEF (with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus) were included in a simulation cohort using a lifetime Markov model. The model, which was developed based on the results of the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial, was composed of three health states. These were ‘alive without an event’ (chronic heart failure state), ‘alive but was hospitalized for heart failure’ (worsening heart failure), and ‘dead’ (death from any cause). Data regarding costs and utilities were obtained from previous studies and local data. These were used to estimate the incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was used for both costs and effects. One‐way (deterministic) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses as well as scenario analyses were performed. The ICER for the addition of dapagliflozin to standard therapy among HFrEF patients was PHP177 868 (US$3434) and PHP160 983 (US$3108), respectively, if the present price (PHP44.00) and possible negotiated unit cost of dapagliflozin 10 mg tablet (PHP40.00) were used. These were deemed cost‐effective because they were both below the threshold ICER which was equivalent to the gross domestic product per capita of the Philippines in 2019, PHP180 500 (US$3485). Using the unit costs of dapagliflozin previously mentioned, the ICERs among HFrEF patients with diabetes were PHP132 582 (US$2560) and PHP120 249 (US$2321), respectively. Doing PSA involving Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 iterations and plotting the resulting ICERs against the threshold ICER in the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves, these ICERs for HFrEF among diabetics were determined to be 72% and 76% cost‐effective. Conclusion Dapagliflozin added to standard therapy for HFrEF patients is likely to be cost‐effective using the perspective of the Philippine public healthcare provider.

Background Sacubitril-valsartan is effective in reducing the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure, with a high acquisition cost compared with enalapril treatment. Objective This study aimed to determine the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan compared with enalapril for acute decompensated heart failure treatment. Methods A Markov model was constructed to project the total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of early initiation, and a 2-month delay of sacubitril-valsartan treatment and enalapril treatment in hospitalized patients with acute decompensated heart failure over a lifetime horizon from a Thai healthcare system perspective. Clinical inputs were mainly derived from the PIONEER-HF and PARADIGM-HF trials, together with Thai epidemiological data. Cost data were based on the Thai population. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan incurred a higher total cost per year (THB 42,994 [US$1367.48] vs THB 19,787 [US$629.37]), and it gained more QALYs (4.969 vs 4.755). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was THB 108,508/QALY (US$3451.26/QALY). Early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan treatment was more cost effective than delayed treatment. Sensitivity analyses revealed that at a level of willingness to pay of THB 160,000/QALY (US$5089/QALY), sacubitril-valsartan was a cost-effective strategy of about 60%. Conclusions Sacubitril-valsartan is cost effective in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. However, the results are highly dependent on the long-term cardiovascular mortality, and they are applicable only to Thailand or countries with a similarly structured healthcare system. Long-term registries should be pursued to decrease the uncertainty around long-term mortality.

Background When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area. Methods Cost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon. Results Based on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD − 1434. Conclusion The results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.

BackgroundDue to COVID-19’s significant morbidity and mortality, identifying the most cost-effective pharmacologic treatment strategy is critical. As such, we determined the most cost-effective strategy for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model.MethodsA decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system.ResultsSupportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98/0.8256 QALY. Remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,764.56/QALY gained compared to supportive care. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed remdesivir for moderate/dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 infection was most cost-effective in 88.6% of scenarios and dexamethasone in moderate-severe infections in 11.4% of scenarios. With lower willingness to pay thresholds ($250-$37,500), dexamethasone for severe infections was favoured.ConclusionsRemdesivir for moderate/dexamethasone for severe COVID-19 infections was the0020most cost-effective strategy. Further data is required for remdesivir to better assess its cost effectiveness in treatment of COVID-19.

Background Respiratory rate (RR) is one of the most important physiologic measures for predicting patients’ deterioration of clinical condition and final prognosis. In several studies, RR has been the most important predictor of patients’ prognoses. Objectives The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis to estimate the cost and effectiveness of automatic respiratory rate monitoring (ARRM) with a non-invasive sensor (RespiraSense™) plus intermittent nurse-led RR monitoring (ARRM strategy) compared with intermittent nurse-led RR monitoring (IM strategy) in patients admitted to hospital in the UK with pneumonia. Methods A decision analytic model was developed based on a hypothetical cohort of patients who were admitted to hospital with pneumonia. After admission, the patients could be monitored with either ARRM or IM strategies. The outcomes of interest included total costs and total effectiveness of each strategy, including length of stay (LoS) in hospital, LoS in intensive care unit, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), deaths, and incremental cost per QALY gained. An incremental cost of £20,000 or less per QALY gained was considered cost effective. A lifetime time horizon (38 years) was used to capture the long-term benefits. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Total costs of patient care in ARRM and IM strategies were £1986.9 million and £2079.4 million, respectively. Total incremental QALYs lived were 3548 higher in the intervention arm (ARRM), meaning that the ARRM strategy was dominant (i.e., less costly [£92.6 million less] and more effective). The results were stable in probabilistic and most of the deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results from threshold analysis indicated that a minimum of 7 and 10% improvement in percentage of early detection of respiratory compromise is required for ARRM to become cost effective and cost saving, respectively. Conclusions Our results indicate that ARRM using RespiraSense, in addition to intermittent nurse-led monitoring of RR, in patients admitted to the hospital with pneumonia could be a cost-saving and cost-effective intervention if the minimum clinical thresholds are met.

Study design Cost-utility analysis. Objective This study aimed to investigate the cost-utility of bracing versus observation in patients with thoracic scoliosis who would be indicated for bracing. Summary of background data There is high-quality evidence that bracing can prevent radiographic progression of spinal curvature in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients with curves between 25° and 40° and Risser 0 to 2 skeletal maturity index. However, to our knowledge, the cost-utility of bracing in AIS has not been established. Methods A decision-analysis model comparing bracing versus observation was developed for a hypothetical 10-year old girl (Risser 0, Sanders 3) with a 35° main thoracic curve. We estimated the probability, cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for each node based on comprehensive review of the literature. Costs were adjusted for inflation based on Consumer Price Index and reported in terms of 2020 real dollars. Incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) was calculated based on a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations of 1000 hypothetical patients. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying cost, probability, and QALY estimates. Results Our decision-analysis model revealed that bracing was the dominant treatment choice over observation at $50,000/QALY willingness to pay threshold. In simulation analysis of a hypothetical patient cohort, bracing was associated with lower net lifetime costs ($60,377 ± $5,340 with bracing vs. $85,279 ± $4543 with observation) and higher net lifetime QALYs (24.1 ± 2.0 with bracing vs. 23.9 ± 1.8 with observation). Bracing was associated with an INMB of $36,093 (95% confidence interval $18,894-$55,963) over observation over the patient's lifetime. The model was most sensitive to the impact of bracing versus observation on altering the probability of requiring surgery, either as an adolescent or an adult. Conclusion Cost-utility analysis supports scoliosis bracing as the preferred choice in management of appropriately indicated AIS patients with thoracic scoliosis.Level of Evidence: 5.

Background The normal ageing process is accompanied by immunosenescence and a progressive weakening of the immune system. High-dose inactivated influenza quadrivalent vaccine (HD-QIV) has shown greater immunogenicity, relative efficacy, and effectiveness than the standard-dose inactivated quadrivalent vaccine (SD-QIV). The aim of the study was to assess the cost-utility of an HD-QIV strategy compared with an adjuvanted trivalent inactivated vaccine (aTIV) strategy in the population above 65 years of age in Spain. Methods We evaluated the public health and economic benefits of alternatives by using a decision-tree model, which included influenza cases, visits to the general practitioner (GP), visits to the emergency department (ED), hospitalisations, and mortality related to influenza. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for both epidemiological and economical sources of uncertainty. Results Our results show that switching from aTIV strategy to HD-QIV would prevent 36,476 cases of influenza, 5,143 visits to GP, 1,054 visits to the ED, 9,193 episodes of hospitalisation due to influenza or pneumonia, and 357 deaths due to influenza – increasing 3,514 life-years and 3,167 quality–adjusted life–years (QALYs). Healthcare costs increase by €78,874,301, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €24,353/QALY. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the results are rather robust. Conclusion Our analysis shows that HD-QIV in people over 65 years of age is an influenza-prevention strategy that is at least cost-effective, if not dominant, in Spain. It reduces cases of influenza, GP visits, hospitalisations, deaths, and associated healthcare costs.

Background Glaucoma is a disease characterized by progressive damage of the optic nerve. Several therapeutic options are available to lower intraocular pressure (IOP). In primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with inadequate IOP control (or controlled with multiple medical therapies or for whom medical therapy is contraindicated), the implantation of micro-invasive glaucoma surgery devices (MIGS) and concomitant cataract surgery has proved to be more effective in reducing intraocular pressure (IOP), as compared to cataract surgery alone. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of iStent inject® device with concurrent cataract surgery vs. cataract surgery alone, in patients with mild-to-moderate POAG, adopting the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods Simulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a Markov model with 4 health states and one-month cycles, that is used to simulate the prognosis of these patients. Efficacy data were obtained from the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A lifetime horizon was adopted in the analysis. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both costs and effects. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (acquisition of main interventions and subsequent procedures; medications; monitoring and follow-up; adverse events). Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses. Results Results of the base-case analysis showed that the total lifetime costs were higher in the iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery, compared with the cataract surgery alone group (€8368.51 vs. €7134.71 respectively). iStent inject® + concurrent cataract surgery was cost-effective vs. cataract surgery alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,037.01 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of base-case results. The cost-effectiveness accessibility curve (CEAC) showed that iStent inject® + cataract surgery would have a 98% probability of being cost-effective, compared to cataract surgery alone, when the willingness to pay (WTP) is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions The results of the cost-utility analysis confirm that iStent inject® + cataract surgery is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients affected by mild-to-moderate POAG, compared with cataract surgery alone, when evaluated from the Italian NHS perspective.

Background Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) in the setting of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a disease that is difficult to treat and prone to recurrence. Dupilumab is a promising treatment for these patients, but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been compared with aspirin (acetylsalicyclic acid, or ASA) desensitization, a known and effective treatment. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ASA desensitization with dupilumab therapy for the treatment of CRSwNP in AERD. Methods Analyses of cost-effectiveness, as measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-utility, as measured in number of required revision endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESSs), were conducted. Results ASA desensitization after ESS was cost-effective and dominated appropriate medical management. Adding salvage dupilumab was also cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $135,517.33), and upfront dupilumab therapy was not cost-effective in any scenario (ICER $273,181.32). The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that, over a 10-year period per patient, appropriate medical management after ESS cost $54,125.31 and resulted in 2.25 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization after ESS cost $53,775.15 and resulted in 2.02 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization with salvage dupilumab cost $121,176.25 and resulted in 1.68 revision ESSs, and upfront dupilumab cost $185,950.34 and resulted in 1.51 revision ESSs. Conclusion Dupilumab for the treatment of severe CRSwNP was found to be cost-effective as salvage therapy under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. Further analysis highlighted that the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab was most sensitive to drug price and expected gains in quality of life. This suggests that additional investigation into improving patient population selection and tailoring treatment algorithms may improve the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab in specific scenarios.

Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of uterine artery embolisation (UAE) and myomectomy for women with symptomatic uterine fibroids wishing to avoid hysterectomy. Design Economic evaluation alongside the FEMME randomised controlled trial. Setting 29 UK hospitals. Population Premenopausal women who had symptomatic uterine fibroids amenable to UAE or myomectomy wishing to avoid hysterectomy. 254 women were randomised to UAE (127) and myomectomy (127). Methods A within-trial cost-utility analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK NHS. Main outcome measures Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 2 and 4 years of follow-up. Results Over a 2-year time horizon, UAE was associated with higher mean costs (difference £645; 95% CI -1381 to 2580) and lower QALYs (difference -0.09; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04) when compared with myomectomy. Similar results were observed over the 4-year time horizon. Thus, UAE was dominated by myomectomy. Results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case results for both years. Over 2 years, UAE was associated with higher costs (difference £456; 95% CI -1823 to 3164) and lower QALYs (difference -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02). Conclusions Myomectomy is a cost-effective option for the treatment of uterine fibroids. The differences in costs and QALYs are small. Women should be fully informed and have the option to choose between the two procedures. Tweetable abstract Fully informed women with uterine fibroids should have a choice between uterine artery embolisation or myomectomy.

Sermsiri Sangroongruangsri,1 Kankamon Kittrongsiri,2 Phunchai Charatcharoenwitthaya,3 Abhasnee Sobhonslidsuk,4 Usa Chaikledkaew1,5 1Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 2Social, Economic and Administrative Pharmacy (SEAP) Graduate Program, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 3Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 4Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 5Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandCorrespondence: Usa ChaikledkaewSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayudhaya Road, Rajathevi, Bangkok, 10400, ThailandTel +662-644-8679 ext 5317Fax +662-644-8694Email usa.chi@mahidol.ac.thPurpose: Type 1 hepatorenal syndrome (type 1 HRS) or hepatorenal syndrome-acute renal injury (HRS-AKI) leads to high short-term mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis. Vasoconstrictor therapy effectively improves survival of these patients and has been a bridge to liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of terlipressin plus albumin (T+A) and noradrenaline plus albumin (N+A) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for treating type 1 HRS patients in Thailand.Methods: A cost-utility analysis using a six-state Markov model was performed from societal and payer perspectives over a lifetime horizon. The clinical outcomes, costs, and utility parameters were obtained from literature, network meta-analyses, and expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty.Results: The T+A yielded the highest cost (848,325 Thai Baht (THB)) and health outcomes (2.82 life-years (LY) and 2.27 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)). Compared to BSC, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the T+A and N+A were 377,566 and 412,979 THB per QALY gained, respectively. If N+A is administered outside the intensive care unit, the ICER was 308,964 THB per QALY. The treatment cost after liver transplantation from year 3 onwards was the most influential factor for ICERs, followed by the cost of terlipressin, duration of noradrenaline treatment, and cost of albumin. At the Thai societal willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB per QALY gained, the probabilities of being cost-effective for T+A, N+A, and BSC were 11%, 20%, and 69%, respectively.Conclusion: The T+A and N+A treatments would not be cost-effective compared to BSC in the Thai setting.Keywords: terlipressin, noradrenaline, HRS-AKI, liver transplantation, economic evaluation, Thailand

Objectives To model the cost-effectiveness of the TYRX Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope when used in patients at increased risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in the context of 3 European healthcare systems: Germany, Italy, and England. Methods A decision tree model with a lifetime horizon was populated using data from the Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial, a large multicenter randomized controlled trial. Use of the antibacterial envelope adjunctive to standard of care was compared to standard of care infection prevention alone. Patients in the model were divided into subgroups based on presence of factors known to increase infection risk. Results The antibacterial envelope had the most favorable cost-effectiveness profile when patients had previously experienced CIED infection, had a history of immunosuppressive therapy, or had a Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) score indicating high risk of infection (scores ≥6) at cost-effectiveness thresholds of €50 000 in Germany (assumed in the absence of an official threshold), €40 000 in Italy, and £30 000 in England. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the antibacterial envelope was likely to be cost-effective in patients with other risk factors (including replacement of high power CIEDs, generator replacement with lead modification, and PADIT scores indicating intermediate risk of infection) when used with some device types and in some countries. Conclusions The absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with cost-effectiveness ratios below European benchmarks in selected patients at increased risk of infection, suggesting the envelope provides value for European healthcare systems by reducing CIED infections.

Background and purpose — In Malawi, both skeletal traction (ST) and intramedullary nailing (IMN) are used in the treatment of femoral shaft fractures, ST being the mainstay treatment. Previous studies have found that IMN has improved outcomes and is less expensive than ST. However, no cost-effectiveness analyses have yet compared IMN and ST in Malawi. We report the results of a cost-utility analysis (CUA) comparing treatment using either IMN or ST. Patients and methods — This was an economic evaluation study, where a CUA was done using a decision-tree model from the government healthcare payer and societal perspectives with an 1-year time horizon. We obtained EQ-5D-3L utility scores and probabilities from a prospective observational study assessing quality of life and function in 187 adult patients with femoral shaft fractures treated with either IMN or ST. The patients were followed up at 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months post-injury. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from utility scores using the area under the curve method. Direct treatment costs were obtained from a prospective micro costing study. Indirect costs included patient lost productivity, patient transportation, meals, and childcare costs associated with hospital stay and follow-up visits. Multiple sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainty. Results — Total treatment costs were higher for ST ($1,349) compared with IMN ($1,122). QALYs were lower for ST than IMN, 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.76) and 0.77 (CI 0.71–0.82) respectively. Based on lower cost and higher utility, IMN was the dominant strategy. IMN remained dominant in 94% of simulations. IMN would be less cost-effective than ST at a total procedure cost exceeding $880 from the payer’s perspective, or $1,035 from the societal perspective. Interpretation — IMN was cost saving and more effective than ST in the treatment of adult femoral shaft fractures in Malawi, and may be an efficient use of limited healthcare resources. publishedVersion

Background In several countries, the dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimen is generally preferred as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) over the efavirenz (EFV)-based regimen, but the evidence in low-income countries is limited. Objective Our study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of DTG- versus EFV-based first-line human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment in Ethiopia. Methods We developed a microsimulation model for the progression of HIV/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) to examine the cost effectiveness of DTG-based first-line ART compared with an EFV-based regimen from a healthcare payer perspective. We used a lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length and a 3% annual discount rate. The primary outcomes were a lifetime cost in US dollars ($), quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) that converted to QALYs using the formula QALY = QALM/12, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for parameter uncertainty. Results Compared with the EFV-based regimen, the DTG-based regimen was associated with an expected lifetime cost of $12,709 (vs. $12,701) and expected QALYs of 15.3 (vs. 14.7 QALYs) per patient, resulting in an ICER value of $13.33 per QALY. From an alternative analysis with a 5-year time horizon, DTG-based ART was found to be dominant, with expected gains of 0.17 QALYs at a lower cost of $1 per patient. The deterministic sensitivity analysis depicted that the maximum increase in ICER value was $72 per QALY, and all ICER values were below the estimated threshold value. Conclusions The DTG-based first-line regimen appears to be cost effective compared with the EFV-based regimen for the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients in an Ethiopian setting.

Background The cost utility of image-guided surveillance using computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT to planned postradiation neck dissection (PRND) was compared for the management of advanced nodal human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer following chemoradiation. Methods A universal payer perspective was adopted. A Markov model was designed to simulate four treatment approaches with 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon: 1) CT surveillance, 2) standard PET-CT surveillance, 3) a novel PET-CT approach with repeat PET at 6 months postchemoradiation for equivocal responders, and 4) PRND. Parameters including probabilities of CT nodal progression/resolution, PET avidity, recurrence, and survival were obtained from the literature. Costs were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars and utilities were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. Results PET-CT surveillance dominated CT surveillance and PRND in the base case scenario, and the novel PET-CT approach was the most cost-effective strategy across a wide range of variables tested in one-way sensitivity analysis. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, novel PET-CT surveillance was the most cost-effective strategy in 78.1% of model iterations at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALYs. Novel PET-CT surveillance resulted in a 49% lower rate of neck dissection compared with traditional PET-CT, and yielded an incremental benefit of 0.14 QALYs with average cost savings of $1309. Conclusions Image-guided surveillance including PET-CT and CT are more cost effective than PRND. The novel PET-CT approach with repeat PET for equivocal responders was the dominant strategy and yielded both higher benefit and lower costs compared with standard PET-CT surveillance.

Background Vaccine is supposed to be the most effective means to prevent COVID-19 as it may not only save lives but also reduce productivity loss due to resuming pre-pandemic activities. Providing the results of economic evaluation for mass vaccination is paramount important for all stakeholders worldwide. Methods We developed a Markov decision tree for the economic evaluation of mass vaccination against COVID-19. The effectiveness of reducing outcomes after the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)) were modelled with empirical parameters obtained from literatures. The direct cost of vaccine and COVID-19 related medical cost, the indirect cost of productivity loss due to vaccine jabs and hospitalization, and the productivity loss were accumulated given different vaccination scenarios. We reported the incremental cost-utility ratio and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of three vaccines compared to no vaccination with a probabilistic approach. Results Moderna and Pfizer vaccines won the greatest effectiveness among the three vaccines under consideration. After taking both direct and indirect costs into account, all of the three vaccines dominated no vaccination strategy. The results of B/C ratio show that one dollar invested in vaccine would have USD $13, USD $23, and USD $28 in return for Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, respectively when health and education loss are considered. The corresponding figures taking value of the statistical life into account were USD $176, USD $300, and USD $443. Conclusion Mass vaccination against COVID-19 with three current available vaccines is cost-saving for gaining more lives and less cost incurred.

Background Although the equitable distribution of diabetic retinopathy (DR) services across Ghana remains paramount, there is currently a poor understanding of nationwide DR treatment services. This study aims to conduct a situation analysis of DR treatment services in Ghana and provide evidence on the breadth, coverage, workload, and gaps in service delivery for DR treatment. Methods A cross-sectional study was designed to identify health facilities which treat DR in Ghana from June 2018 to August 2018. Data were obtained from the facilities using a semi-structured questionnaire which included questions identifying human resources involved in DR treatment, location of health facilities with laser, vitreoretinal surgery and Anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (Anti-VEGF) for DR treatment, service utilisation and workload at these facilities, and the average price of DR treatment in these facilities. Results Fourteen facilities offer DR treatment in Ghana; four in the public sector, seven in the private sector and three in the Christian Health Association of Ghana (CHAG) centres. There was a huge disparity in the distribution of facilities offering DR services, the eye care cadre, workload, and DR treatment service (retinal laser, Anti-VEGF, and vitreoretinal surgery). The retinal laser treatment price was independent of all variables (facility type, settings, regions, and National Health Insurance Scheme coverage). However, settings (p = 0.028) and geographical regions (p = 0.010) were significantly associated with anti-VEGF treatment price per eye. Conclusion Our results suggest a disproportionate distribution of DR services in Ghana. Hence, there should be a strategic development and implementation of an eye care plan to ensure the widespread provision of DR services to the disadvantaged population as we aim towards a disadvantaged population as we aim towards a universal health coverage.

Objectives The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. Methods We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. Results A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. Conclusion Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.