BackgroundStroke is one of the most relevant reasons of death and disability worldwide. Many cost of illness studies have been performed to evaluate direct and indirect costs of ischaemic stroke, especially within the first year after the acute episode, using different methodologies.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal, retrospective, bottom-up cost of illness study, to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes of a cohort of patients affected by a first cerebrovascular event, including subjects with ischaemic, haemorrhagic or transient episodes. The analysis intended to detect direct costs, within 1, 2 and 3 years from the index event. Clinical patient data collected in regional disease registry were integrated and linked to regional administrative databases to perform the analysis.ResultsThe analysis of costs within the first year from the index event included 800 patients. The majority of patients (71.5%) were affected by ischaemic stroke. Overall, per patient costs were €7,079. Overall costs significantly differ according to the type of stroke, with costs for haemorrhagic stroke and ischaemic stroke amounting to €9,044 and €7,289. Hospital costs, including inpatient rehabilitation, were driver of expenditure, accounting for 89.5% of total costs. The multiple regression model showed that sex, level of physical disability and level of neurological deficit predict direct healthcare costs within 1 year. The analysis at 2 and 3 years (per patient costs: €7,901 and €8,874, respectively) showed that majority of costs are concentrated in the first months after the acute event.ConclusionsThis cost analysis highlights the importance to set up significant prevention programs to reduce the economic burden of stroke, which is mostly attributable to hospital and inpatient rehabilitation costs immediately after the acute episode. Although some limitation typical of retrospective analyses the approach of linking clinical and administrative database is a power tool to obtain useful information for healthcare planning.
Varenicline in addition to counselling is cost-effective compared to placebo and counselling in smokers with CVD.
Background Published literature suggests that early treatment with natalizumab (“escalation strategy”) is more effective than switch within the same class of immunomodulators (interferons/glatiramer acetate, “switching strategy”) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients who failed first-line self-injectable disease-modifying treatment (DMT). The present analysis aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of escalation strategy vs. switching strategy, adopting the Italian societal perspective. Methods A lifetime horizon Markov model was developed to compare early escalation to natalizumab vs. switching among immunomodulators, followed by subsequent escalation to natalizumab. The two compared treatment algorithms were: a) early escalation until progression to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) = 7.0 vs. b) switching until EDSS = 4.0, followed by escalation until EDSS = 7.0. The model analyzed social costs, quality-adjusted survival and effects of therapies in prolonging time without disability progression and burden of relapses. Clinical data were mainly extracted from a published observational study. Results Lifetime costs of early escalation to natalizumab and switching among immunomodulators amounted to €699,700 and €718,600 per patient, respectively. Early escalation was associated with prolonged quality-adjusted survival (11.19 vs. 9.67 QALYs, + 15.8%). A slight overall survival increase was also observed (20.10 vs. 19.67 life years). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of findings. Conclusions Adopting the Italian social perspective, early escalation to natalizumab is dominant vs. switching among immunomodulators, in RRMS patients who do not respond adequately to conventional immunomodulators. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4264-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
multipla recidivante-remittente (SMRR). Le terapie iniettive di prima linea (interferoni -IFN beta-1a, IFN beta-1b e glatiramer acetato -GA), si sono dimostrate variamente efficaci nel determinare un miglioramento IntroduzIone e obIettIvI dell'analIsINegli ultimi decenni, il trattamento con terapie disease-modifying (DMT) ha permesso di modificare la storia naturale della sclerosi METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) and outcomes and costs were evaluated over a 50-year time horizon (equivalent to a lifetime horizon). Both outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5%. The Markov model estimates the clinical and economic consequences of treating RRMS patients with the following therapeutic options: DMF, interferon (IFN) beta-1a intramuscular (IM); IFN beta-1a subcutaneous (SC) at two different doses, 22 mcg and 44 mcg; IFN beta-1b SC; glatiramer acetate (GA) SC 20 mg; oral teriflunomide. Clinical efficacy data used in this analysis came from an elaboration of the mixed treatment comparison (MTC) already published. According to the Italian NHS perspective, only the following direct costs were considered: pharmacological treatment acquisition, treatment monitoring, relapse management, direct costs associated with disability, adverse event management. Administration costs were assumed equal to €0, because every treatment included in the economic analysis can be self-administered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed and cost effectiveness acceptability curves generated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, DMF was more efficacious than alternatives, in terms of both survival (19.496 vs. 19.297-19.461 discounted LYs, respectively), and QALYs (6.548 vs. 5.172-6.212 discounted QALYs, respectively). Per-patient lifetime costs with DMF amounted to € 276,500, similarly to the other options. DMF was the drug with the largest effect of disability cost reduction. DMF was dominant vs. IFN beta-1a 44 mcg and cost-effective vs. all other IFNs, GA and teriflunomide, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) between € 11,272 and € 23,409. All ICER values were lower than the € 50,000 per QALY threshold. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for all tested scenarios, ICER of DMF vs. therapeutic alternatives remained favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) and the results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for DMF of being favourable (≤ 50.000 €/QALY gained) was between around 70% and 93%, thus ensuring robustness of the results. CON-CLUSIONS: The results of this economic analysis show that, at the current price and the described assumptions, DMF represents a cost-effective option vs. other available first-line treatments indicated in RRMS in the perspective of the Italian NHS.
cronicità e la progressione della malattia con ricadute e disabilità crescente incidono sulla qualità di vita del paziente e sui costi per la società. L'esordio della malattia nella fase giovaneadulta coincide con il pieno della vita affetIntroduzIone L'organizzazione mondiale della sanità (OMS) ha definito la sclerosi multipla (SM) una delle malattie sociali maggiormente costose. L'esordio nella fase giovane-adulta, la AbstrActBACKGROUND: Peginterferon beta-1a is indicated in adult patients for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). The efficacy and safety of peginterferon beta-1a was demonstrated in the placebo-controlled ADVANCE trial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a as compared with injectable first-line treatments for RRMS in Italy. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed through a Markov model with lifetime simulation in the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS). It was added an alternative scenario to take into account the Italian societal perspective. Outcomes were measured in terms of life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The natural progression of the disease was informed by the published literature and previously published modelling exercises. The efficacy of treatments was simulated as reduction of disability progression (EDSS) and relapse rate. Efficacy data were derived from a published network meta-analysis. Unit costs were based on current prices and tariffs, and the published literature. A 3.5% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves generated. RESULTS: Peginterferon beta-1a was more effective than the comparators in terms of survival (19.94 vs.19.68-19.81 discounted LYs, respectively), and QALYs (9.07 vs. 8.06 and 8.55 discounted QALY, respectively). In the perspective of the Italian NHS, the ICER was € 11,111/QALY vs. interferon beta-1a 30 µg, € 12,604/QALY vs. interferon beta-1a 22 µg, € 10,580/QALY and € 16,702/QALY vs. interferon beta-1b 250 µg and € 22,023/QALY vs. glatiramer acetate 20 mg. Peginterferon beta-1a dominated interferon beta-1a 44 µg. In the societal perspective, peginterferon beta-1a was dominant due to being more effective and with a lower social cost compared to first-line injectable treatments (interferon beta -1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate) for RRMS. The outcomes of the sensitivity analyses confirmed the trend of the base case results. CONCLUSIONS: Peginterferon beta-1a shows a favourable pharmaco-economic profile for the treatment of RRMS. Even if an official threshold for the cost-effectiveness does not exist in Italy, the ICER values obtained were far below the commonly accepted thresholds (30,000-50,000 €/per QALY gained). Keywords Cost-effectiveness; Peginterferon beta-1a; Multiple SclerosisAnalisi di costo-efficacia dell'utilizzo ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.