Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of apixaban compared with usual care for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Apixaban (2.5 mg) taken twice daily has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with placebo for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE. We aimed to compare the health system costs and health benefits associated with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban with those associated with the current standard of care (where no primary thromboprophylaxis is given), from the perspective of Canada's publicly funded health care system in this subpopulation of patients with cancer over a lifetime horizon.

Methods

We performed a cost-utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban. We obtained baseline event rates and the efficacy of apixaban from the Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) trial on apixaban prophylaxis. We estimated relative risk for bleeding, risk of complications associated with VTE treatment, mortality rates, costs and utilities from other published sources.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, apixaban resulted in lower costs to the health system (Can$7902.98 v. Can$14 875.82) and an improvement in QALYs (9.089 v. 9.006). The key driver of cost-effectiveness results was the relative risk of VTE as a result of apixaban. Results from the probabilistic analysis showed that at a willingness to pay of Can$50 000 per QALY, the strategy with the highest probability of being most cost-effective was apixaban, with a probability of 99.87%.

Interpretation

We found that apixaban is a cost-saving option for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE.

SUBMITTER: Kimpton M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8568073 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC.MethodsParticipants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively.ResultsPatients (n = 894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n = 732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n = 524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n = 370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49-3811.22) per QALY.ConclusionEconomic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective.Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN: ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018.

Project description:Background: There is little experience in the economic evaluation of pharmacy/primary care collaborative health interventions using interprofessional technology-driven communication under real-world conditions. This study aimed to conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of a collaborative care intervention in hypertension and hyperlipidemia management between pharmacies and primary care versus usual (fragmented) care alongside a trial. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial. Data sources included primary care clinical software; pharmacy dispensing software; patient telephone surveys; and published literature. The target population was adult patients on hypertension and/or lipid-lowering medication. The perspective was societal. We collected patient-level data on resource use to estimate trial costs. Effect outcomes included blood pressure (BP) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were estimated. Results: The intervention was not shown to have reasonable levels of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility when compared to usual care as denoted by the levels of uncertainty expressed in wide confidence intervals. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective is 28% at the threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained and 57% at the threshold of €500 per mmHg systolic BP decrease. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of the trial which affected effectiveness and economic outcomes, our results are not generalizable for community pharmacy and primary care in Portugal. This research offers, however, valuable lessons on methods and strategies that can be used in future economic evaluations of collaborative public health interventions with the potential for reimbursement. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13410498, identifier ISRCTN13410498.

Project description:To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR).Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives.Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy.Patients discharged after TKR.Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions)The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive.TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56.The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates.ISRCTN45837371.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is a common mental health condition with considerable negative impact on health and well-being. Although antidepressants are recommended as first-line treatment, there is limited evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of long-term maintenance antidepressants for preventing relapse.ObjectivesOur objective was to calculate the mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months of discontinuing long-term antidepressant medication in well patients compared with maintenance, using patient-level trial data.MethodsWe conducted a cost-utility analysis of 478 participants from 150 UK general practices recruited to a randomised, double-blind trial (ANTLER). QALYs were calculated from EQ-5D-5L and 12-Item Short Form survey (SF-12) results, with primary analysis using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Resource use was collected from primary care patient electronic medical records and self-completed questionnaires capturing mental-health-related resource use. Costs were calculated by applying standard UK unit costs to resource use. Adjustments were made for baseline variables.ResultsParticipants randomised to discontinuation had significantly worse utility scores at 3 months (- 0.032; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.053 to - 0.011) but no significant difference in QALYs (- 0.011; 95% CI - 0.026 to 0.003) or costs (£3.11; 95% CI - 41.28 to 47.50) at 12 months. The probability that discontinuation was cost effective compared with maintenance was 12.9% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsDiscontinuation of antidepressants was unlikely to be cost effective compared with maintenance for currently well patients on long-term antidepressants. However, this analysis provides no information on the wider impact of antidepressants. Our findings provide information on the potential impact of discontinuing long-term maintenance antidepressants and facilitate improving guidance for shared patient-clinician decision making.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2015-004210-26; ISRCTN number ISRCTN15969819.

Project description:BackgroundMinor ailments are "self-limiting conditions which may be diagnosed and managed without a medical intervention". A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) was designed to evaluate the clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of a Minor Ailment Service (MAS) in community pharmacy (CP) compared with usual care (UC).MethodsThe cRCT was conducted for 6 months from December 2017. The pharmacist-patient intervention consisted of a standardised face-to-face consultation on a web-based program using co-developed protocols, pharmacists' training, practice change facilitators and patients' educational material. Patients requesting a non-prescription medication (direct product request) or presenting minor ailments received MAS or UC and were followed-up by telephone 10-days after the consultation. The primary economic outcomes were incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the service and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs included health system, CPs and patient direct costs: health professionals' consultation time, medication costs, pharmacists' training costs, investment of the pharmacy and consultation costs within the 10 days following the initial consultation. The HRQoL was obtained using the EuroQoL 5D-5L at the time of the consultation and at 10-days follow up. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using bootstrapping. There were two sub-group analyses undertaken, for symptom presentation and direct product requests, to evaluate possible differences.ResultsA total of 808 patients (323 MAS and 485 UC) were recruited in 27 CPs with 42 pharmacists (20 MAS and 22 UC). 64.7% (n = 523) of patients responded to follow-up after their consultation in CP. MAS patients gained an additional 0.0003 QALYs (p = 0.053). When considering only MAS patients presenting with symptoms, the ICUR was 24,733€/QALY with a 47.4% probability of cost-effectiveness (willingness to pay of 25,000€/QALY). Although when considering patients presenting for a direct product request, MAS was the dominant strategy with a 93.69% probability of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsExpanding community pharmacists' scope through MAS may benefit health systems. To be fully cost effective, MAS should not only include consultations arising from symptom presentation but also include an oversight of self-selected products by patients. MAS increase patient safety through the appropriate use of non-prescription medication and through the direct referral of patients to GP.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17235323 . Registered 07/05/2021 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:Many smartphone applications (apps) for weight loss are available, but little is known about their effectiveness.To evaluate the effect of introducing primary care patients to a free smartphone app for weight loss.Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01650337).2 academic primary care clinics.212 primary care patients with body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater.6 months of usual care without (n = 107) or with (n = 105) assistance in downloading the MyFitnessPal app (MyFitnessPal).Weight loss at 6 months (primary outcome) and changes in systolic blood pressure and behaviors, frequency of app use, and satisfaction (secondary outcomes).After 6 months, weight change was minimal, with no difference between groups (mean between-group difference, -0.30 kg [95% CI, -1.50 to 0.95 kg]; P = 0.63). Change in systolic blood pressure also did not differ between groups (mean between-group difference, -1.7 mm Hg [CI, -7.1 to 3.8 mm Hg]; P = 0.55). Compared with patients in the control group, those in the intervention group increased use of a personal calorie goal (mean between-group difference, 2.0 d/wk [CI, 1.1 to 2.9 d/wk]; P < 0.001), although other self-reported behaviors did not differ between groups. Most users reported high satisfaction with MyFitnessPal, but logins decreased sharply after the first month.Despite being blinded to the name of the app, 14 control group participants (13%) used MyFitnessPal. In addition, 32% of intervention group participants and 19% of control group participants were lost to follow-up at 6 months. The app was given to patients by research assistants, not by physicians.Smartphone apps for weight loss may be useful for persons who are ready to self-monitor calories, but introducing a smartphone app is unlikely to produce substantial weight change for most patients.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences for the UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research Center for Health Improvement of Minority Elderly under the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging.