Dataset Information

Simulation of Health and Economic Benefits of Extended Observation of Resolved Anaphylaxis.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Biphasic anaphylaxis may occur in up to 20% of patients with anaphylaxis; however, the optimal observation time of patients with resolved anaphylaxis is unknown. Objective:To characterize the cost-effectiveness of short vs prolonged medical observation times after resolved anaphylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants:An economic evaluation was performed of computer-simulated adult patients observed in outpatient allergy clinics and emergency departments, with rates of biphasic anaphylaxis derived from a 2019 meta-analysis. Exposures:Computer-simulated patients (10?000 per strategy) were randomized to undergo 1 hour of medical observation (associated with 95% negative predictive value of biphasic anaphylaxis) or 6 or more hours of observation (associated with a 97.3% negative predictive value of biphasic anaphylaxis). Main Outcomes and Measures:Cost-effectiveness of 6- to 24-hour medical observation of resolved anaphylaxis evaluated at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $10?000 per case of biphasic anaphylaxis observed and $10 million per death prevented, assuming that observation is associated with a 10- to 1000-fold reduction in the risk of death due to biphasic anaphylaxis. Results:Biphasic anaphylaxis occurred after hospital discharge in 365 patients observed for 1 hour and in 213 patients undergoing prolonged observation. From a health care sector perspective, with medical observation costs of $286.92 per hour, the incremental cost of extended medical observation of resolved anaphylaxis (1 hour vs 6 hours) was $62?374 per case of biphasic anaphylaxis identified ($68?411 from the societal perspective). In Monte Carlo simulations, with hourly costs ranging from $100 to $500 and extended observation ranging from 6 to 24 hours (health care sector perspective), the mean (SD) costs were $295.36 ($81.22) for 1 hour of observation vs $3540.42 ($1626.67) for extended observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $213?439 per biphasic anaphylaxis observed ($230?202 from the societal perspective). A 6-hour observation could be cost-effective if the risk of biphasic anaphylaxis after 1-hour observation of resolved anaphylaxis was 17% or if hourly observation costs were less than $46 in the base case. Cost-effectiveness could also be achieved (willingness-to-pay of $10?million per death prevented, health care sector perspective) when a baseline fatality rate of 0.33% per biphasic anaphylactic event was assumed, with a no greater than 24% relative risk of fatality associated with 6-hour observation. Conclusions and Relevance:This study indicates that prolonged medical observation (6-24 hours) for resolved anaphylaxis may not be cost-effective for patients at low risk for biphasic anaphylaxis; however, in particular clinical circumstances of low observation costs, high postdischarge risk of biphasic anaphylaxis, or large incremental fatality risk reduction associated with extended observation, longer medical observation can be justified.

SUBMITTER: Shaker M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6820064 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Simulation of Health and Economic Benefits of Extended Observation of Resolved Anaphylaxis.

Shaker Marcus M Wallace Dana D Golden David B K DBK Oppenheimer John J Greenhawt Matthew M

JAMA network open 20191002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Biphasic anaphylaxis may occur in up to 20% of patients with anaphylaxis; however, the optimal observation time of patients with resolved anaphylaxis is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To characterize the cost-effectiveness of short vs prolonged medical observation times after resolved anaphylaxis.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>An economic evaluation was performed of computer-simulated adult patients observed in outpatient allergy clinics and emergency departments, with r ...[more]

PMID: 31642933

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAn estimated 6-10 million people in India live with active epilepsy, and less than half are treated. We analyze the health and economic benefits of three scenarios of publicly financed national epilepsy programs that provide: (1) first-line antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs), (2) first- and second-line AEDs, and (3) first- and second-line AEDs and surgery.MethodsWe model the prevalence and distribution of epilepsy in India using IndiaSim, an agent-based, simulation model of the Indian population. Agents in the model are disease-free or in one of three disease states: untreated with seizures, treated with seizures, and treated without seizures. Outcome measures include the proportion of the population that has epilepsy and is untreated, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and cost per DALY averted. Economic benefit measures estimated include out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure averted and money-metric value of insurance.ResultsAll three scenarios represent a cost-effective use of resources and would avert 800,000-1 million DALYs per year in India relative to the current scenario. However, especially in poor regions and populations, scenario 1 (which publicly finances only first-line therapy) does not decrease the OOP expenditure or provide financial risk protection if we include care-seeking costs. The OOP expenditure averted increases from scenarios 1 through 3, and the money-metric value of insurance follows a similar trend between scenarios and typically decreases with wealth. In the first 10 years of scenarios 2 and 3, households avert on average over US$80 million per year in medical expenditure.SignificanceExpanding and publicly financing epilepsy treatment in India averts substantial disease burden. A universal public finance policy that covers only first-line AEDs may not provide significant financial risk protection. Covering costs for both first- and second-line therapy and other medical costs alleviates the financial burden from epilepsy and is cost-effective across wealth quintiles and in all Indian states.

Project description:BackgroundGlobally, the status of women's health falls short of its potential. In addition to the deleterious ethical and human rights implications of this deficit, the negative economic impact may also be consequential, but these mechanisms are poorly understood. Building on the literature that highlights health as a driver of economic growth and poverty alleviation, we aim to systematically investigate the broader economic benefits of investing in women's health.MethodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically reviewed health, gender, and economic literature to identify studies that investigate the impact of women's health on micro- and macroeconomic outcomes. We developed an extensive search algorithm and conducted searches using 10 unique databases spanning the timeframe 01/01/1970 to 01/04/2013. Articles were included if they reported on economic impacts stemming from changes in women's health (table of outcome measures included in full review, Table 1). In total, the two lead investigators independently screened 20,832 abstracts and extracted 438 records for full text review. The final review reflects the inclusion of 124 articles.ResultsThe existing literature indicates that healthier women and their children contribute to more productive and better-educated societies. This study documents an extensive literature confirming that women's health is tied to long-term productivity: the development and economic performance of nations depends, in part, upon how each country protects and promotes the health of women. Providing opportunities for deliberate family planning; healthy mothers before, during, and after childbirth, and the health and productivity of subsequent generations can catalyze a cycle of positive societal development.ConclusionsThis review highlights the untapped potential of initiatives that aim to address women's health. Societies that prioritize women's health will likely have better population health overall, and will remain more productive for generations to come.

Project description:BackgroundRare diseases are difficult to diagnose. Due to their rarity, heterogeneity, and variability, rare diseases often result not only in extensive diagnostic tests and imaging studies, but also in unnecessary repetitions of examinations, which places a greater overall burden on the healthcare system. Diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) optimized by rare disease experts and used early by primary care physicians and specialists are able to significantly shorten diagnostic processes. The objective of this study was to evaluate reductions in diagnostic costs incurred in rare disease cases brought about by rapid referral to an expert and diagnostic decision support systems.MethodsRetrospectively, diagnostic costs from disease onset to diagnosis were analyzed in 78 patient cases from the outpatient clinic for rare inflammatory systemic diseases at Hannover Medical School. From the onset of the first symptoms, all diagnostic measures related to the disease were taken from the patient files and documented for each day. The basis for the health economic calculations was the Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM) used in Germany for statutory health insurance, which assigns a fixed flat rate to the various medical services. For 76 cases we also calculated the cost savings that would have been achieved by the diagnosis support system Ada DX applied by an expert.ResultsThe expert was able to achieve significant savings for patients with long courses of disease. On average, the expert needed only 27 % of the total costs incurred in the individual treatment odysseys to make the correct diagnosis. The expert also needed significantly less time and avoided unnecessary examination repetitions. If a DDSS had been applied early in the 76 cases studied, only 51-68 % of the total costs would have incurred and the diagnosis would have been made earlier. Earlier diagnosis would have significantly reduced costs.ConclusionThe study showed that significant savings in the diagnostic process of rare diseases can be achieved through rapid referral to an expert and the use of DDSS. Faster diagnosis not only achieves savings, but also enables the right therapy and thus an increase in the quality of life for patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although guidelines for prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination recommend two doses for girls ages 9-14?years, several studies have demonstrated similar protection with one dose. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term health and economic impacts of routine one-dose HPV vaccination compared to (1) no vaccination and (2) two-dose HPV vaccination in a low-income country. METHODS:We used a three-tiered hybrid modeling approach that captured HPV transmission, cervical carcinogenesis, and population demographics to project long-term health and economic outcomes associated with one-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 80% efficacy against HPV-16/18 infections under three waning scenarios) and two-dose HPV vaccination (assuming 100% efficacy over the lifetime) in Uganda. Costs included the vaccine program (dosage and delivery) costs over a 10-year period and cervical cancer costs over the lifetimes of the current population of Ugandan women. Health outcomes included number of cervical cancer cases and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (i.e., cost per DALY averted) were calculated and compared against the Ugandan per-capita gross domestic product. RESULTS:Routine one-dose HPV vaccination of 9-year-old girls required substantial upfront investment but was cost-saving compared to no vaccination when accounting for the cost-offsets from future cancers averted. Forty years after initiating routine vaccination and depending on assumptions of vaccine waning, one-dose HPV vaccination with equivalent coverage (70%) averted 15-16% of cervical cancer cases versus 21% with two-dose vaccination but required only half the upfront economic investment. Vaccination with two doses had an attractive cost-effectiveness profile except if one-dose vaccination enabled higher coverage (90% vs. 70%) and did not wane. CONCLUSIONS:One-dose HPV vaccination resulted in cost-savings compared to no vaccination and could be cost-effective compared to two-dose vaccination if protection is longstanding and higher coverage can be achieved.

Project description:ImportanceCommercial epicutaneous peanut immunotherapy (EPIT) and peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) may offer significant quality-of-life improvements for patients with peanut allergy, but the cost-effectiveness of commercial peanut immunotherapies is uncharacterized.ObjectiveTo evaluate critical inputs associated with the cost-effectiveness of EPIT and POIT from a societal perspective.Design, setting, and participantsEconomic evaluation in which microsimulations with Markov modeling were performed evaluating virtual children aged 4 years over an 80-year time horizon. The base-case costs included a caregiver-reported willingness to pay of $3839 annually for safe and effective food allergy treatment. Estimates of predictive biomarkers or oral challenges were incorporated after the first year of therapy with additional analyses of immunotherapy risk reduction of anaphylaxis and probability of sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to peanut after 4 years.ExposuresChildren received EPIT, POIT, or no immunotherapy treatment (n?=?10?000 per treatment strategy).Main outcomes and measuresRates of therapy-associated adverse reactions and quality-of-life improvements associated with changes in eliciting or tolerated peanut doses were modeled along with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), anaphylaxis, therapy-associated anaphylaxis, and fatalities.ResultsIn the base-case analysis without SU to peanut, the EPIT strategy cost less than POIT (mean [SD] cost, $154?662 [$46?716] vs $163?524 [$56?800]) and had fewer total episodes of anaphylaxis (mean [SD], 1.33 [1.55] vs 3.83 [5.02] episodes) and fewer episodes of therapy-associated anaphylaxis (mean [SD], 0.62 [1.30] vs 3.10 [4.94] episodes) but had lower QALY accumulation (mean [SD], 26.932 [2.241] vs 26.945 [2.320] QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $216?061 for EPIT and $255?431 for POIT. Models were sensitive to therapy cost, SU rates, health state utility, and risk reduction of anaphylaxis. With health state utility sensitivity analyses, the ceiling value-based cost (willingness-to-pay threshold $100?000/QALY) was between $1568 and $6568 for EPIT and between $1235 and $5235 for POIT. If high rates of SU to peanut can be achieved in longer-term models, EPIT and POIT could produce savings in terms of both cost and QALY.Conclusions and relevanceIn this simulated analysis, findings showed that EPIT and POIT may be cost-effective under some assumptions. Further research is needed to understand the degree of health state utility improvement associated with each therapy, degree of protection against anaphylaxis, and rates of SU.

Dataset Information

Simulation of Health and Economic Benefits of Extended Observation of Resolved Anaphylaxis.

Publications

Simulation of Health and Economic Benefits of Extended Observation of Resolved Anaphylaxis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure