Search

Background Laparoscopic liver resection is increasing operate. In the early stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many studies supported that laparoscopic liver resection was a safe procedure and showed some clinical benefits. However, the full economic evaluation has not been fully investigated. Methods A hybrid model of decision tree and Markov state transition model was constructed. Health outcomes were life-year gained (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted by 1,000 micro-simulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported and the willingness to pay (WTP) was defined at 160,000 THB per QALY gained. Results Laparoscopic liver resection in the early stage of HCC was not cost-effective. In the base-case analysis, the total lifetime cost of laparoscopic approach was an average of 413,377 THB (US$13,214) higher than open approach by 55,474 THB (US$1,773) with a small QALY gained. The resulting ICER was 1,356,521 THB (US$43,362) per QALY gained. Conclusion Laparoscopic liver resection is not considered as a cost-effective alternative to open liver surgery in the early stage of HCC. In the Thai healthcare perspective, the results from this study may inform policymakers for the future policy implementation and healthcare resource allocation.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Thailand. However, they have not been listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to aid policymakers in deciding whether DOACs should be listed in the NLEM. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of DOACs for patients with VTE in Thailand. Methods: A cohort-based state transition model was constructed from a societal perspective with a lifetime horizon. All available DOACs, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, were compared with warfarin. A 6-month cycle length was used to capture all costs and health outcomes. The model consisted of nine health states, including VTE on treatment, VTE off treatment, recurrent VTE, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, post-intracranial bleeding, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and death. All inputs were based on a comprehensive literature review. The model outcomes included total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with a 3% annual discount rate. A fully incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained were calculated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of THB 160,000/QALY ($5003). The robustness of the findings was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: All DOACs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE recurrence and intracranial hemorrhage. In the base-case analysis, apixaban could increase 0.16 QALYs compared with warfarin. An ICER for apixaban was 269,809 Thai baht (THB)/QALY ($8437/QALY). Rivaroxaban had a better QALY than warfarin at 0.09 QALYs with an ICER of 757,363 THB/QALY ($23,682/QALY). Edoxaban and dabigatran could also increase by 0.10 QALYs with an ICER of 709,945 THB ($22,200) and 707,145 THB ($22,122)/QALY, respectively. Our probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that warfarin had a 99.8% possibility of being cost-effective, while apixaban had a 0.2% possibility of being cost-effective at the current WTP. Other DOACs had no possibility of being cost-effective. Conclusions: All DOACs were not cost-effective for VTE treatment at the current WTP in Thailand. Apixaban is likely to be the best option among DOACs.

Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized treatment for chronic pain. This systematic review aims to assess economic evaluations of SCS for the management of all chronic pain conditions, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. Methods Economic evaluations were identified by searching general medical and economic databases complemented with screening of reference lists of identified studies. No restrictions on language or treatment comparators were applied. Relevant data were extracted. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were judged to be of acceptable quality. Economic evaluations assessed SCS for the management of refractory angina pectoris, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and peripheral arterial disease. Model-based studies typically applied a 2-stage model, i.e. decision tree followed by Markov model. Time horizon varied from 1 year to lifetime. Cost-effectiveness ranged widely from dominant (SCS cost-saving and more effective) to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >£100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness appeared to depend on the time horizon, choice of comparator, and indication. Ten of the studies indicated SCS as cost-saving or cost-effective compared with the alternative strategies. Conclusion The results consistently suggest that SCS is cost-effective when considering a long-term time horizon, particularly for the management of FBSS and CRPS. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCS for ischemic pain and DPN.