Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is uncertainty whether low-risk episodes of febrile neutropaenia (FN) in adult cancer patients are best managed in the in- or outpatient setting.Methods
A Monte Carlo cost-utility model was created to compare four treatment strategies for low-risk FN: (1) treatment in hospital with intravenous antibiotics (HospIV); (2) early discharge after 48 h in-patient observation, followed by oral outpatient treatment (EarlyDC); (3) outpatient management with IV antibiotics (HomeIV); and (4) outpatient management with oral antibiotics (HomePO). The model used a health-care payer perspective and a time horizon of one FN episode. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted FN episodes (QAFNE), costs (Canadian dollars) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Parameter uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results
HomePO was cost saving ($3470 vs $4183), but less effective (0.65 QAFNE vs 0.72 QAFNE) than HomeIV. The corresponding ICER was $10,186 per QAFNE. Both EarlyDC ($6115; 0.66 QAFNE) and HospIV ($13,557; 0.62 QAFNE) were dominated strategies. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,000 per QAFNE, HomePO and HomeIV were cost effective in 54 and 38% of simulations, respectively.Interpretation
For adult cancer patients with an episode of low-risk FN, treatment in hospital is more expensive and less effective than outpatient strategies.
SUBMITTER: Teuffel O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3101923 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMicrodiscectomy is the most commonly performed spine surgery and the first transitioning for outpatient settings. However, this transition was never studied, in what comes to cost-utility assessment. Accordingly, this economic study aims to access the cost-effectiveness of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy when compared with the inpatient procedure.MethodsThis is a cost utility study, adopting the hospital perspective. Direct medical costs were retrieved from the assessment of 20 patients undergoing outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy and 20 undergoing inpatient lumbar microdiscectomy Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from Oswestry Disability Index values (ODI). ODI was prospectively assessed in outpatients in pre and 3- and 6-month post-operative evaluations. Inpatient ODI data were estimated from a meta-analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) calculated.ResultsOutpatient procedure was cost-saving in all models tested. At 3-month assessment ICER ranged from €135,753 to €345,755/QALY, higher than the predefined threshold of €60,000/QALY gained. At 6-month costs were lower and utilities were higher in outpatient, overpowering the inpatient procedure. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that in 65% to 73% of simulations outpatient was the better option. The savings with outpatient were about 55% of inpatient values, with similar utility scores. No 30-day readmissions were recorded in either group.ConclusionThis is the first economic study on cost-effectiveness of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy, showing a significant reduction in costs, with a similar clinical outcome, proving it cost-effective.
| S-EPMC8004396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective.MethodsA Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted.ResultsBase-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively.ConclusionFrom a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.
| S-EPMC5357483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently more than 340,000 individuals are receiving long-term hemodialysis (HD) therapy for end-stage renal disease and therefore are particularly vulnerable to influenza, prone to more severe influenza outcomes, and less likely to achieve seroprotection from standard influenza vaccines. Influenza vaccine adjuvants, chemical or biologic compounds added to a vaccine to boost the elicited immunologic response, may help overcome this problem.Economic stochastic decision analytic simulation model.US adult HD population.The model simulated the decision to use either an adjuvanted or nonadjuvanted vaccine, assumed the societal perspective, and represented a single influenza season, or 1 year.Adjuvanted influenza vaccine at different adjuvant costs and efficacies. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of varying influenza clinical attack rate, influenza hospitalization rate, and influenza-related mortality.Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adjuvanted influenza vaccine (vs nonadjuvanted) with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years.Adjuvanted influenza vaccine would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year) at a $1 adjuvant cost (on top of the standard vaccine cost) when adjuvant efficacy (in overcoming the difference between influenza vaccine response in HD patients and healthy adults) ≥60% and economically dominant (provides both cost savings and health benefits) when the $1 adjuvant's efficacy is 100%. A $2 adjuvant would be cost-effective if adjuvant efficacy was 100%.All models are simplifications of real life and cannot capture all possible factors and outcomes.Adjuvanted influenza vaccine with adjuvant cost ≤$2 could be a cost-effective strategy in a standard influenza season depending on the potency of the adjuvant.
| S-EPMC3085888 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThis study used a decision-analytic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of brexpiprazole vs comparator branded therapies for reducing relapses and hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia from a US payer perspective.MethodsAn economic model was developed to assess patients with stable schizophrenia initiating treatment with brexpiprazole (1-4 mg), cariprazine (1-6 mg), or lurasidone (40-80 mg) over a 1-year period. After 6 months, patients remained on treatment or discontinued due to relapse, adverse events, or other reasons. Patients who discontinued due to relapse or adverse events were assumed to have switched to other therapy, and those who discontinued due to other reasons were assumed to have received no therapy. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per relapse avoided and hospitalization avoided, and the secondary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.ResultsBrexpiprazole was associated with the highest per-patient clinical effectiveness (avoided relapses 0.637, avoided hospitalizations 0.719, QALYs 0.707) among comparators, followed by cariprazine (avoided relapses 0.590, avoided hospitalizations 0.683, QALYs 0.683) and lurasidone (avoided relapses 0.400, avoided hospitalizations 0.536, QALYs 0.623). Annual per-patient health-care costs were lowest for brexpiprazole ($20,510), followed by cariprazine ($22,282) and lurasidone ($25,510). Brexpiprazole was the least costly and most effective treatment strategy for all outcomes. Results were sensitive to relapse rates and daily cost of brexpiprazole. Limitations include data principally obtained from drug-specific randomized withdrawal studies and lack of direct-comparison trials.ConclusionThis analysis evaluated brexpiprazole treatment for the reduction of schizophrenia relapses and hospitalizations over a 1-year period compared to other recently available branded antipsychotics, and excluded generic antipsychotic treatments. Brexpiprazole treatment may lead to clinical benefits and medical cost savings, and provides a cost-effective treatment option for patients relatively to other branded second-generation antipsychotics.
| S-EPMC6101022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSkin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) caused by Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL)-producing strains of Staphylococcus aureus (PVL-SA) are associated with recurrent skin abscesses. Secondary prevention, in conjunction with primary treatment of the infection, focuses on topical decolonization. Topical decolonization is a standard procedure in cases of recurrent PVL-SA skin infections and is recommended in international guidelines. However, this outpatient treatment is often not fully reimbursed by health insurance providers, which may interfere with successful PVL-SA decolonization.AimOur goal was to estimate the cost effectiveness of outpatient decolonization of patients with recurrent PVL-SA skin infections. We calculated the average cost of treatment for PVL-SA per outpatient decolonization procedure as well as per in-hospital stay.MethodsThe study was conducted between 2014 and 2018 at a German tertiary care university hospital. The cohort analyzed was obtained from the hospital's microbiology laboratory database. Data on medical costs, DRG-based diagnoses, and ICD-10 patient data was obtained from the hospital's financial controlling department. We calculated the average cost of treatment for patients admitted for treatment of PVL-SA induced skin infections. The cost of outpatient treatment is based on the German regulations of drug prices for prescription drugs.ResultsWe analyzed a total of n = 466 swabs from n = 411 patients with recurrent skin infections suspected of carrying PVL-SA. PVL-SA was detected in 61.3% of all patients included in the study. Of those isolates, 80.6% were methicillin-susceptible, 19.4% methicillin-resistant. 89.8% of all patients were treated as outpatients. In 73.0% of inpatients colonized with PVL-SA the main diagnosis was SSTI. The median length of stay was 5.5 days for inpatients colonized with PVL-SA whose main diagnosis SSTI; the average cost was €2,283. The estimated costs per decolonization procedure in outpatients ranged from €50-€110, depending on the products used.ConclusionOur data shows that outpatient decolonization offers a highly cost-effective secondary prevention strategy, which may prevent costly inpatient treatments. Therefore, health insurance companies should consider providing coverage of outpatient treatment of recurrent PVL-SA skin and soft tissue infections.
| S-EPMC8232536 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8971934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Febrile neutropenia has a significant clinical and economic impact on cancer patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of different current empiric antibiotic treatments. METHODS:A decision analytic model was constructed to compare the use of cefepime, meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, and piperacillin/tazobactam for treatment of high-risk patients. The analysis was performed from the perspective of U.S.-based hospitals. The time horizon was defined to be a single febrile neutropenia episode. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating costs and deaths averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for various willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTP), were used to address the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS:The base-case analysis results showed that treatments were equally effective but differed mainly in their cost. In increasing order: treatment with imipenem/cilastatin cost $52,647, cefepime $57,270, piperacillin/tazobactam $57,277, and meropenem $63,778. In the probabilistic analysis, mean costs were $52,554 (CI: $52,242-$52,866) for imipenem/cilastatin, $57,272 (CI: $56,951-$57,593) for cefepime, $57,294 (CI: $56,978-$57,611) for piperacillin/tazobactam, and $63,690 (CI: $63,370-$64,009) for meropenem. Furthermore, with a WTP set at $0 to $50,000, imipenem/cilastatin was cost-effective in 66.2% to 66.3% of simulations compared to all other high-risk options. DISCUSSION:Imipenem/cilastatin is a cost-effective strategy and results in considerable health care cost-savings at various WTP thresholds. Cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to differentiate the treatments of febrile neutropenia in high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7254453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesIn the UK, patients who require intravenous antimicrobial (IVA) treatment may receive this in the community through outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) services. Services include: IVA administration at a hospital outpatient clinic (HO); IVA administration at home by a general nurse (GN) or a specialist nurse (SN); or patient self-administered (SA) IVA administration following training. There is uncertainty regarding which OPAT services represent value for money; this study aimed to estimate their cost-effectiveness.MethodsA cost-effectiveness decision-analytic model was developed using a simulation technique utilizing data from hospital records and a systematic review of the literature. The model estimates cost per QALY gained from the National Health Service (NHS) perspective for short- and long-term treatment of infections and service combinations across these.ResultsIn short-term treatments, HO was estimated as the most effective (0.7239 QALYs), but at the highest cost (£973). SN was the least costly (£710), producing 0.7228 QALYs. The combination between SN and HO was estimated to produce 0.7235 QALYs at a cost of £841. For long-term treatments, SN was the most effective (0.677 QALYs), costing £2379, while SA was the least costly at £1883, producing 0.666 QALYs. A combination of SA and SN was estimated to produce 0.672 QALYs at a cost of £2128.ConclusionsSN and SA are cost-effective for short- and long-term treatment of infections, while combining services may represent the second-best alternative for OPAT in the UK.
| S-EPMC5890745 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Many countries have acquired antiviral stockpiles for pandemic influenza mitigation and a significant part of the stockpile may be focussed towards community-based treatment. METHODS:We developed a spreadsheet-based, decision tree model to assess outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment for outpatient use from the perspective of the healthcare payer in the UK. We defined five pandemic scenarios-one based on the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic and four hypothetical scenarios varying in measures of transmissibility and severity. RESULTS:Community-based antiviral treatment was estimated to avert 14-23% of hospitalizations in an overall population of 62.28 million. Higher proportions of averted outcomes were seen in patients with high-risk conditions, when compared to non-high-risk patients. We found that antiviral treatment was cost-saving across pandemic scenarios for high-risk population groups, and cost-saving for the overall population in higher severity influenza pandemics. Antiviral effectiveness had the greatest influence on both the number of hospitalizations averted and on cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis shows that across pandemic scenarios, antiviral treatment can be cost-saving for population groups at high risk of influenza-related complications.
| S-EPMC7313872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoverage levels for many recommended adult vaccinations are low. The cost-effectiveness research literature on adult vaccinations has not been synthesized in recent years, which may contribute to low awareness of the value of adult vaccinations and to their under-utilization. We assessed research literature since 1980 to summarize economic evidence for adult vaccinations included on the adult immunization schedule.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to 2016 and identified economic evaluation or cost-effectiveness analysis for vaccinations targeting persons aged ≥18 years in the U.S. or Canada. After excluding records based on title and abstract reviews, the remaining publications had a full-text review from two independent reviewers, who extracted economic values that compared vaccination to "no vaccination" scenarios.ResultsThe systematic searches yielded 1688 publications. After removing duplicates, off-topic publications, and publications without a "no vaccination" comparison, 78 publications were included in the final analysis (influenza = 25, pneumococcal = 18, human papillomavirus = 9, herpes zoster = 7, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis = 9, hepatitis B = 9, and multiple vaccines = 1). Among outcomes assessing age-based vaccinations, the percent indicating cost-savings was 56% for influenza, 31% for pneumococcal, and 23% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations. Among age-based vaccination outcomes reporting $/QALY, the percent of outcomes indicating a cost per QALY of ≤$100,000 was 100% for influenza, 100% for pneumococcal, 69% for human papillomavirus, 71% for herpes zoster, and 50% for tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccinations.ConclusionsThe majority of published studies report favorable cost-effectiveness profiles for adult vaccinations, which supports efforts to improve the implementation of adult vaccination recommendations.
| S-EPMC6545890 | biostudies-literature