Dataset Information

Cost-minimisation analysis of plasma exchange versus IVIg in the treatment of autoimmune neurological conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Plasma exchange (PLEX) is an effective treatment for antibody-mediated neurological disorders and has been shown to be equally efficacious to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) with comparable adverse event profiles. IVIg has traditionally been the preferred treatment option due to its ease of use. However, advancing technology has allowed PLEX to be performed with a centrifugal system via peripheral access as opposed to central access via a membrane filter.

Methods

We prospectively collected data from a cohort of patients who underwent PLEX at the Wessex Neurological Centre, UK, to perform a cost-minimisation analysis comparing PLEX to IVIg, the standard of care, between May 2019 and May 2020. Data obtained included indication, admission type (inpatient, daycase or intensive care), access (peripheral or central), number of PLEX cycles, exchange volume, patient weight, complications and clinical outcomes. The cost of PLEX delivered in an outpatient setting for an average 80kg person was calculated and compared to the equivalent cost of delivering IVIg by means of a cost-minimization model.

Results

The provision of PLEX was roughly half as costly when compared to what it would have been for IVIg (£886 per exchange vs £1778 per infusion or £4432 per cycle of 5 exchanges vs £8890 per cycle of 5 infusions). Our cohort included a total of 44 patients who received a total of 357 PLEX exchanges during the 12-month period (the majority of which were in a daycase setting). We calculated an annual cost saving for PLEX over IVIg of £318,589. The robustness of this result was confirmed by a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, showing the cost-effectiveness of PLEX.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that PLEX is more cost-effective than IVIg in this setting. Our study supports the economic case for development of plasma exchange centres in regional neurology units, a case made all the more relevant in the context of constrained supplies of IVIg.

SUBMITTER: Klemencic Kozul T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was established in 2016, to develop vaccines that can contribute to preparedness for outbreaks of epidemic infectious diseases. Evidence on vaccine development costs for such diseases is scarce. Our goal was to estimate the minimum cost for achieving vaccine research and development preparedness targets in a portfolio of 11 epidemic infectious diseases, accounting for vaccine pipeline constraints and uncertainty in research and development preparedness outcomes.MethodsWe assembled a pipeline of 224 vaccine candidates from preclinical through to phase 2 for 11 priority epidemic infectious diseases. We used a linear regression model to identify drivers of development costs from preclinical through to end of phase 2a. Drawing from published estimates of vaccine research and development probabilities of success, we simulated costs for advancing these 224 vaccine candidates through to the end of phase 2a. We combined these findings to determine minimum costs for progressing at least one vaccine through to the end of phase 2a per epidemic infectious disease by means of a stochastic optimisation model.FindingsThe cost of developing a single epidemic infectious disease vaccine from preclinical trials through to end of phase 2a is US$31-68 million (US$14-159 million range), assuming no risk of failure. We found that previous licensure experience and indirect costs are upward drivers of research and development costs. Accounting for probability of success, the average cost of successfully advancing at least one epidemic infectious disease vaccine through to the end of phase 2a can vary from US$84-112 million ($23 million-$295 million range) starting from phase 2 to $319-469 million ($137 million-$1·1 billion range) starting from preclinical. This cost includes the cumulative cost of failed vaccine candidates through the research and development process. Assuming these candidates and funding were made available, progressing at least one vaccine through to the end of phase 2a for each of the 11 epidemic infectious diseases would cost a minimum of $2·8-3·7 billion ($1·2 billion-$8·4 billion range).InterpretationOur analysis provides new evidence on vaccine research and development pipelines and associated costs for 11 epidemic infectious diseases, highlighting both funding needs and research and development gaps for achieving vaccine research and development preparedness targets.FundingThis work was partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through the Global Health and Vaccination Programme GLOBVAC.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the cost differences between magnetic resonance-guided focussed ultrasound (MRgFUS) and unilateral deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of medication-refractory essential tremor (ET) in Japan using a cost-minimisation model.MethodsA cost-minimisation model estimated total costs for MRgFUS and unilateral DBS by summing the pre-procedure, procedure, and post-procedure costs over a 12-month time horizon, using data from published sources and expert clinical opinion. The model base case considered medical costs from fee-for-service tariffs. Scenario analyses investigated the use of Diagnosis Procedure Combination tariffs, a diagnosis-related group-based fixed-payment system, and the addition of healthcare professional labour costs healthcare professionals using tariffs from the Japanese Health Insurance Federation for Surgery. One-way sensitivity analyses altered costs associated with tremor recurrence after MRgFUS, the extraction rate following unilateral DBS, the length of hospitalisation for unilateral DBS and the procedure duration for MRgFUS. The impact of uncertainty in model parameters on the model results was further explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsCompared to unilateral DBS, MRgFUS was cost saving in the base case and Diagnosis Procedure Combination cost scenario, with total savings of JPY400,380 and JPY414,691, respectively. The majority of savings were accrued at the procedural stage. Including labour costs further increased the cost differences between MRgFUS and unilateral DBS. Cost savings were maintained in each sensitivity analysis and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, demonstrating that the model results are highly robust.ConclusionsIn the Japanese healthcare setting, MRgFUS could be a cost saving option versus unilateral DBS for treating medication-refractory ET. The model results may even be conservative, as the cost of multiple follow-ups for unilateral DBS and treatment costs for adverse events associated with each procedure were not included. This model is also consistent with the results of other economic analyses of MRgFUS versus DBS in various settings worldwide.