Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-03-15DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0040
Kara Sarrel, Daniel Hameed, Jeremy Dubin, Michael A Mont, David J Jacofsky, Andréa B Coppolecchia
Aim: The overall goal of this review was to examine the cost-utility of robotic-arm assisted surgery versus manual surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic review of all health economic studies that compared CT-based robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty with manual techniques. The papers selected focused on various cost-utility measures. In addition, where appropriate, secondary aims encompassed various clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, discharges to subacute care, etc.). Only articles directly comparing CT-based robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty with manual joint arthroplasty were included, for a resulting total of 21 reports. Results: Almost all twenty-one studies demonstrated a positive effect of CT scan-guided robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty on health economic outcomes. For studies reporting on 90-day episodes of costs, 10 out of 12 found lower costs in the robotic-arm assisted groups. Conclusion: Robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty patients had shorter lengths of stay and cost savings based on their 90-day episodes of care, among other metrics. Payors would likely benefit from encouraging the use of this CT-based robotic technology.
{"title":"Understanding economic analysis and cost-effectiveness of CT scan-guided, 3-dimensional, robotic-arm assisted lower extremity arthroplasty: a systematic review.","authors":"Kara Sarrel, Daniel Hameed, Jeremy Dubin, Michael A Mont, David J Jacofsky, Andréa B Coppolecchia","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0040","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0040","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> The overall goal of this review was to examine the cost-utility of robotic-arm assisted surgery versus manual surgery. <b>Methods:</b> We performed a systematic review of all health economic studies that compared CT-based robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty with manual techniques. The papers selected focused on various cost-utility measures. In addition, where appropriate, secondary aims encompassed various clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, discharges to subacute care, etc.). Only articles directly comparing CT-based robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty with manual joint arthroplasty were included, for a resulting total of 21 reports. <b>Results:</b> Almost all twenty-one studies demonstrated a positive effect of CT scan-guided robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty on health economic outcomes. For studies reporting on 90-day episodes of costs, 10 out of 12 found lower costs in the robotic-arm assisted groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> Robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty patients had shorter lengths of stay and cost savings based on their 90-day episodes of care, among other metrics. Payors would likely benefit from encouraging the use of this CT-based robotic technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044952/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140131656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-02-08DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0127
Lucas Lima Tôrres, Pâmela Santos Azevedo, Túlio Tadeu Rocha Sarmento, Djenane Ramalho-de-Oliveira, Edna Afonso Reis, Isabella Piassi Dias Godói, Augusto Afonso Guerra Júnior, Cristina Mariano Ruas
Aim: Comprehensive medication management (CMM) is a clinical service that aims to optimize the therapeutic results of patients at the individual level. Studies carried out in Brazil and in several parts of the world have found a positive impact of the service, mainly in the resolution of drug therapy problems and in improving clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life. This service is not widespread and its acceptability and willingness to pay were not defined by the population yet. Objective: This work aims to conduct a study with users of private health services to determine the acceptability and willingness to pay for CMM services. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey conducted through face-to-face interviews, among residents over 18 years of age of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, capital of Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Results: For this study, 563 individuals were interviewed. Most respondents were female (55.1%), had completed high school (46.8%) and were employed (62.5%). The acceptability for the service was 93,25%, and among all respondents, 37 would not accept the service even if it was free. The amount of consumers' willingness to pay for the CMM service was estimated at $17.75 (40.00 BRL). Conclusion: The research results show that most people are willing to pay for the CMM service. This study can contribute to the decision-making regarding the implementation and pricing of the service in Brazil.
{"title":"Acceptability and consumers' willingness to pay for comprehensive medication management services in Brazil.","authors":"Lucas Lima Tôrres, Pâmela Santos Azevedo, Túlio Tadeu Rocha Sarmento, Djenane Ramalho-de-Oliveira, Edna Afonso Reis, Isabella Piassi Dias Godói, Augusto Afonso Guerra Júnior, Cristina Mariano Ruas","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0127","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0127","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Comprehensive medication management (CMM) is a clinical service that aims to optimize the therapeutic results of patients at the individual level. Studies carried out in Brazil and in several parts of the world have found a positive impact of the service, mainly in the resolution of drug therapy problems and in improving clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life. This service is not widespread and its acceptability and willingness to pay were not defined by the population yet. <b>Objective:</b> This work aims to conduct a study with users of private health services to determine the acceptability and willingness to pay for CMM services. <b>Methods:</b> This is a cross-sectional survey conducted through face-to-face interviews, among residents over 18 years of age of the metropolitan region of Belo Horizonte, capital of Minas Gerais State, Brazil. <b>Results:</b> For this study, 563 individuals were interviewed. Most respondents were female (55.1%), had completed high school (46.8%) and were employed (62.5%). The acceptability for the service was 93,25%, and among all respondents, 37 would not accept the service even if it was free. The amount of consumers' willingness to pay for the CMM service was estimated at $17.75 (40.00 BRL). <b>Conclusion:</b> The research results show that most people are willing to pay for the CMM service. This study can contribute to the decision-making regarding the implementation and pricing of the service in Brazil.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044949/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139702616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-02-23DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0047
Giuseppe Talamonti, Jörn-Andre Horaczek, Rafael Torrejon Torres, Lisa Da Deppo, Marissa J Carter
Aim: Posterior cranial fossa (PCF) surgery is associated with complications, including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage. Dural sealants such as polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogels and fibrin glue can prevent CSF leaks, with evidence suggesting PEG hydrogels may outperform fibrin glue. However, the budget impact of using PEG hydrogels in PCF surgeries in Europe is unclear. Materials & methods: A decision tree was developed based on a previous US model, to assess the budget impact of switching from fibrin glue to PEG hydrogel in PCF surgery across five European countries. Input costs were derived from published sources for the financial year 2022/2023. Health outcomes, including CSF leaks, were considered. Results: The model predicted that using PEG hydrogel instead of fibrin glue in PCF surgery can lead to cost savings in five European countries. Cost savings per patient ranged from EUR 419 to EUR 1279, depending on the country. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incidence of CSF leaks and pseudomeningoceles had a substantial impact on the model's results. Conclusion: PEG hydrogels may be a cost-effective alternative to fibrin glue in PCF surgery. The model predicted that cost savings would be mainly driven by a reduction in the incidence of postoperative CSF leaks, resulting in reduced reliance on lumbar drains, reparative surgery and shortened hospital stays.
{"title":"PEG hydrogel sealant versus fibrin glue in posterior fossa surgery: an economic comparison across five European countries.","authors":"Giuseppe Talamonti, Jörn-Andre Horaczek, Rafael Torrejon Torres, Lisa Da Deppo, Marissa J Carter","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0047","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0047","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Posterior cranial fossa (PCF) surgery is associated with complications, including cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage. Dural sealants such as polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based hydrogels and fibrin glue can prevent CSF leaks, with evidence suggesting PEG hydrogels may outperform fibrin glue. However, the budget impact of using PEG hydrogels in PCF surgeries in Europe is unclear. <b>Materials & methods:</b> A decision tree was developed based on a previous US model, to assess the budget impact of switching from fibrin glue to PEG hydrogel in PCF surgery across five European countries. Input costs were derived from published sources for the financial year 2022/2023. Health outcomes, including CSF leaks, were considered. <b>Results:</b> The model predicted that using PEG hydrogel instead of fibrin glue in PCF surgery can lead to cost savings in five European countries. Cost savings per patient ranged from EUR 419 to EUR 1279, depending on the country. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incidence of CSF leaks and pseudomeningoceles had a substantial impact on the model's results. <b>Conclusion:</b> PEG hydrogels may be a cost-effective alternative to fibrin glue in PCF surgery. The model predicted that cost savings would be mainly driven by a reduction in the incidence of postoperative CSF leaks, resulting in reduced reliance on lumbar drains, reparative surgery and shortened hospital stays.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044953/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139931430","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Aim: This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. Patients & methods: A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. Results: Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide versus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B patients in Greece.","authors":"Emmanouil Sinakos, Nandita Kachru, Christos Tsoulas, Sushanth Jeyakumar, Nathaniel J Smith, Alon Yehoshua, Evangelos Cholongitas","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0090","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0090","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. <b>Patients & methods:</b> A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. <b>Results:</b> Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. <b>Conclusion:</b> Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044955/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139691989","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-02-29DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0131
Essy Mozaffari, Aastha Chandak, Robert L Gottlieb, Chidinma Chima-Melton, Andre C Kalil, Vishnudas Sarda, Celine Der-Torossian, Thomas Oppelt, Mark Berry, Alpesh N Amin
Aim: This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. Patients & methods: Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). Results: Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. Conclusion: Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.
{"title":"Treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with lower likelihood of 30-day readmission: a retrospective observational study.","authors":"Essy Mozaffari, Aastha Chandak, Robert L Gottlieb, Chidinma Chima-Melton, Andre C Kalil, Vishnudas Sarda, Celine Der-Torossian, Thomas Oppelt, Mark Berry, Alpesh N Amin","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0131","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0131","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This observational study investigated the association between remdesivir treatment during hospitalization for COVID-19 and 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across different variants time periods. <b>Patients & methods:</b> Hospitalization records for adult patients discharged from a COVID-19 hospitalization between 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2022 were extracted from the US PINC AI Healthcare Database. Likelihood of 30-day readmission was compared among remdesivir-treated and nonremdesivir-treated patients using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for age, corticosteroid treatment, Charlson comorbidity index and intensive care unit stay during the COVID-19 hospitalization. Analyses were stratified by maximum supplemental oxygen requirement and variant time period (pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron). <b>Results:</b> Of the 440,601 patients discharged alive after a COVID-19 hospitalization, 248,785 (56.5%) patients received remdesivir. Overall, remdesivir patients had a 30-day COVID-19-related readmission rate of 3.0% and all-cause readmission rate of 6.3% compared with 5.4% and 9.1%, respectively, for patients who did not receive remdesivir during their COVID-19 hospitalization. After adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics, remdesivir treatment was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day COVID-19-related readmission (odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.58-0.62]), and all-cause readmission (0.73 [0.72-0.75]). Significantly lower odds of 30-day readmission in remdesivir-treated patients was observed across all variant time periods. <b>Conclusion:</b> Treating patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with remdesivir is associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day COVID-19-related and all-cause readmission across variant time periods. These findings indicate that the clinical benefit of remdesivir may extend beyond the COVID-19 hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044956/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139990196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-01Epub Date: 2024-02-13DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0109
Michael L Sabolinski, Tad Archambault
Aim: To determine the effectiveness of bilayered living cellular construct (BLCC) versus a fetal bovine collagen dressing (FBCD) in pressure injuries (PRIs). Methods: A real-world data study was conducted on 1352 PRIs analyzed digitally. 1046 and 306 PRIs were treated with BLCC and FBCD, respectively. Results: Cox healing for BLCC (n = 1046) was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) at week 4 (13 vs 7%), 8 (29 vs 17%), 12 (42 vs 27%), 24 (64 vs 45%), and 36 (73 vs 56%). The probability of healing increased by 66%, (hazard ratio = 1.66 [95% CI (1.38, 2.00)]; p < 0.0001. Time to healing was 162 days for FBCD and 103 days for BLCC showing a 36% reduction in time to healing with BLCC; (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: BLCC significantly improved healing of PRIs versus FBCD.
目的:确定双层活细胞结构(BLCC)与胎牛胶原敷料(FBCD)对压力损伤(PRIs)的疗效。方法:进行一项真实世界数据研究:对 1352 例 PRI 进行了数字分析,并进行了一项真实世界数据研究。使用 BLCC 和 FBCD 治疗的 PRI 分别为 1046 例和 306 例。研究结果BLCC 的 Cox 愈合率(n = 1046)明显更高(p 结论:BLCC 明显改善了 PRIs 的愈合:与 FBCD 相比,BLCC 能明显改善 PRI 的愈合。
{"title":"Real-world data analysis of bilayered living cellular construct and fetal bovine collagen dressing treatment for pressure injuries: a comparative effectiveness study.","authors":"Michael L Sabolinski, Tad Archambault","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0109","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0109","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To determine the effectiveness of bilayered living cellular construct (BLCC) versus a fetal bovine collagen dressing (FBCD) in pressure injuries (PRIs). <b>Methods:</b> A real-world data study was conducted on 1352 PRIs analyzed digitally. 1046 and 306 PRIs were treated with BLCC and FBCD, respectively. <b>Results:</b> Cox healing for BLCC (n = 1046) was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) at week 4 (13 vs 7%), 8 (29 vs 17%), 12 (42 vs 27%), 24 (64 vs 45%), and 36 (73 vs 56%). The probability of healing increased by 66%, (hazard ratio = 1.66 [95% CI (1.38, 2.00)]; p < 0.0001. Time to healing was 162 days for FBCD and 103 days for BLCC showing a 36% reduction in time to healing with BLCC; (p < 0.0001). <b>Conclusion:</b> BLCC significantly improved healing of PRIs versus FBCD.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044950/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139722840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amir Ansaripour, Eoin Moloney, Michael Branagan-Harris, Lorenzo Patrone, Mehdi Javanbakht
Aim: Digital variance angiography (DVA) is a recently developed image processing method capable of improving image quality compared with the traditionally used digital subtraction angiography (DSA), among patients undergoing lower limb x-ray angiography. This study aims to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of DVA from an English National Health Service perspective. Materials & methods: A two-part economic model, consisting of a decision tree and a Markov model, was developed to consider the costs and health outcomes associated with the use of DVA as part of current practice imaging, compared with x-ray angiography using standard DSA. The model explored the impact of DVA on the development of acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease and radiation-induced cancer over a lifetime horizon. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Base-case results indicate that DVA results in cost savings of £309 per patient, with QALYs also improving (+0.025) over a lifetime. As shown in sensitivity analysis, a key driver of model results is the relative risk (RR) reduction of contrast-associated acute kidney injury associated with use of DVA. The intervention also decreases the risk of carcinoma over a lifetime. Scenario analyses show that cost savings range from £310 to £553, with QALY gains ranging from 0.048 to 0.109 per patient. Conclusion: The use of DVA could result in a decrease in costs and an increase in QALYs over a lifetime, compared with existing imaging practice. The potential for this technology to offer an economically viable alternative to existing image processing methods, through a reduction in contrast media volume and radiation exposure, has been demonstrated.
目的:与传统的数字减影血管造影术(DSA)相比,数字变异血管造影术(DVA)是最近开发的一种图像处理方法,能够提高下肢 X 射线血管造影术患者的图像质量。本研究旨在从英国国民健康服务的角度探讨 DVA 的潜在成本效益。材料与方法:研究开发了一个由决策树和马尔可夫模型两部分组成的经济模型,与使用标准 DSA 的 X 射线血管造影术相比,该模型考虑了与使用 DVA 作为当前成像实践的一部分相关的成本和健康结果。该模型探讨了 DVA 对一生中急性肾损伤 (AKI)、慢性肾病和辐射诱发癌症的影响。进行了确定性分析和概率分析,以评估每质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本。结果显示基础案例分析结果表明,DVA 可为每位患者节省 309 英镑的成本,在一生中的 QALY 也有所改善(+0.025)。如敏感性分析所示,模型结果的主要驱动因素是使用 DVA 后造影剂相关急性肾损伤的相对风险 (RR) 降低。干预措施还能降低终生罹患癌症的风险。情景分析表明,可节约成本 310 英镑到 553 英镑不等,每位患者的 QALY 收益从 0.048 到 0.109 不等。结论:与现有的影像学实践相比,使用 DVA 可以在一生中降低成本,增加 QALY。这项技术通过减少造影剂用量和辐射暴露,为现有图像处理方法提供了一种经济可行的替代方案,其潜力已得到证实。
{"title":"Digital variance angiography in patients undergoing lower limb arterial recanalization: cost-effectiveness analysis within the English healthcare setting.","authors":"Amir Ansaripour, Eoin Moloney, Michael Branagan-Harris, Lorenzo Patrone, Mehdi Javanbakht","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0068","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0068","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> Digital variance angiography (DVA) is a recently developed image processing method capable of improving image quality compared with the traditionally used digital subtraction angiography (DSA), among patients undergoing lower limb x-ray angiography. This study aims to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of DVA from an English National Health Service perspective. <b>Materials & methods:</b> A two-part economic model, consisting of a decision tree and a Markov model, was developed to consider the costs and health outcomes associated with the use of DVA as part of current practice imaging, compared with x-ray angiography using standard DSA. The model explored the impact of DVA on the development of acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease and radiation-induced cancer over a lifetime horizon. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). <b>Results:</b> Base-case results indicate that DVA results in cost savings of £309 per patient, with QALYs also improving (+0.025) over a lifetime. As shown in sensitivity analysis, a key driver of model results is the relative risk (RR) reduction of contrast-associated acute kidney injury associated with use of DVA. The intervention also decreases the risk of carcinoma over a lifetime. Scenario analyses show that cost savings range from £310 to £553, with QALY gains ranging from 0.048 to 0.109 per patient. <b>Conclusion:</b> The use of DVA could result in a decrease in costs and an increase in QALYs over a lifetime, compared with existing imaging practice. The potential for this technology to offer an economically viable alternative to existing image processing methods, through a reduction in contrast media volume and radiation exposure, has been demonstrated.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11044957/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140184573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-01-04DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0122
Ronan Mahon, Santosh Tiwari, Mirja Koch, Matias Ferraris, Keith A Betts, Yan Wang, Sophie Gao, Pascal Proot
Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison.","authors":"Ronan Mahon, Santosh Tiwari, Mirja Koch, Matias Ferraris, Keith A Betts, Yan Wang, Sophie Gao, Pascal Proot","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0122","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0122","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. <b>Methods:</b> Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. <b>Results:</b> Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. <b>Conclusion:</b> In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10945420/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139087093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-01-11DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0147
Kristian Thorlund, Stephen Duffield, Sanjay Popat, Sreeram Ramagopalan, Alind Gupta, Grace Hsu, Paul Arora, Vivek Subbiah
Development of medicines in rare oncologic patient populations are growing, but well-powered randomized controlled trials are typically extremely challenging or unethical to conduct in such settings. External control arms using real-world data are increasingly used to supplement clinical trial evidence where no or little control arm data exists. The construction of an external control arm should always aim to match the population, treatment settings and outcome measurements of the corresponding treatment arm. Yet, external real-world data is typically fraught with limitations including missing data, measurement error and the potential for unmeasured confounding given a nonrandomized comparison. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) comprises a collection of approaches for modelling the magnitude of systematic errors in data which cannot be addressed with conventional statistical adjustment. Their applications can range from simple deterministic equations to complex hierarchical models. QBA applied to external control arm represent an opportunity for evaluating the validity of the corresponding comparative efficacy estimates. We provide a brief overview of available QBA approaches and explore their application in practice. Using a motivating example of a comparison between pralsetinib single-arm trial data versus pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy real-world data for RET fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients (1-2% among all NSCLC), we illustrate how QBA can be applied to external control arms. We illustrate how QBA is used to ascertain robustness of results despite a large proportion of missing data on baseline ECOG performance status and suspicion of unknown confounding. The robustness of findings is illustrated by showing that no meaningful change to the comparative effect was observed across several 'tipping-point' scenario analyses, and by showing that suspicion of unknown confounding was ruled out by use of E-values. Full R code is also provided.
针对罕见肿瘤患者群体的药物开发日益增多,但在这种情况下进行有充分证据支持的随机对照试验通常极具挑战性或不道德。在没有对照组数据或对照组数据很少的情况下,越来越多地使用外部对照组数据来补充临床试验证据。外部对照组的构建应始终以匹配相应治疗组的人群、治疗设置和结果测量为目标。然而,外部真实世界数据通常存在很多局限性,包括数据缺失、测量误差以及在非随机对比的情况下可能存在未测量的混杂因素。定量偏倚分析(QBA)包括一系列用于模拟数据中系统误差大小的方法,这些误差无法通过传统的统计调整来解决。其应用范围从简单的确定性方程到复杂的层次模型。应用于外部对照臂的 QBA 是评估相应比较疗效估计值有效性的一个机会。我们简要介绍了现有的 QBA 方法,并探讨了它们在实践中的应用。我们以 RET 融合阳性晚期非小细胞肺癌(aNSCLC)患者(在所有 NSCLC 中占 1-2%)的普拉塞替尼单臂试验数据与彭博利珠单抗(pembrolizumab)单独或联合化疗的真实世界数据进行比较为例,说明了如何将 QBA 应用于外部对照臂。我们说明了在基线 ECOG 表现状态数据缺失比例较大且怀疑存在未知混杂因素的情况下,如何使用 QBA 来确定结果的稳健性。通过显示在多个 "临界点 "情景分析中未观察到有意义的比较效应变化,以及通过显示使用 E 值排除了未知混杂的怀疑,说明了研究结果的稳健性。还提供了完整的 R 代码。
{"title":"Quantitative bias analysis for external control arms using real-world data in clinical trials: a primer for clinical researchers.","authors":"Kristian Thorlund, Stephen Duffield, Sanjay Popat, Sreeram Ramagopalan, Alind Gupta, Grace Hsu, Paul Arora, Vivek Subbiah","doi":"10.57264/cer-2023-0147","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2023-0147","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Development of medicines in rare oncologic patient populations are growing, but well-powered randomized controlled trials are typically extremely challenging or unethical to conduct in such settings. External control arms using real-world data are increasingly used to supplement clinical trial evidence where no or little control arm data exists. The construction of an external control arm should always aim to match the population, treatment settings and outcome measurements of the corresponding treatment arm. Yet, external real-world data is typically fraught with limitations including missing data, measurement error and the potential for unmeasured confounding given a nonrandomized comparison. Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) comprises a collection of approaches for modelling the magnitude of systematic errors in data which cannot be addressed with conventional statistical adjustment. Their applications can range from simple deterministic equations to complex hierarchical models. QBA applied to external control arm represent an opportunity for evaluating the validity of the corresponding comparative efficacy estimates. We provide a brief overview of available QBA approaches and explore their application in practice. Using a motivating example of a comparison between pralsetinib single-arm trial data versus pembrolizumab alone or combined with chemotherapy real-world data for RET fusion-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients (1-2% among all NSCLC), we illustrate how QBA can be applied to external control arms. We illustrate how QBA is used to ascertain robustness of results despite a large proportion of missing data on baseline ECOG performance status and suspicion of unknown confounding. The robustness of findings is illustrated by showing that no meaningful change to the comparative effect was observed across several 'tipping-point' scenario analyses, and by showing that suspicion of unknown confounding was ruled out by use of E-values. Full R code is also provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10945419/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139417260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-01Epub Date: 2024-02-08DOI: 10.57264/cer-2024-0009
Alice Beattie, Catrin Treharne, Sreeram V Ramagopalan
In this latest update, we explore some of the key updates in market access over recent months including the UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG), the first drugs funded by the Innovative Medicines Fund in the UK and the Direct Access Scheme in France, and, finally, the new Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value assessment framework in the USA.
{"title":"Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 3.","authors":"Alice Beattie, Catrin Treharne, Sreeram V Ramagopalan","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0009","DOIUrl":"10.57264/cer-2024-0009","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this latest update, we explore some of the key updates in market access over recent months including the UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG), the first drugs funded by the Innovative Medicines Fund in the UK and the Direct Access Scheme in France, and, finally, the new Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value assessment framework in the USA.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10945425/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139702617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}