Méthodes d’analyse et de traitement des données de coût : approches par « micro-costing » et « gross-costing »

Morelle, Magali; Plantier, Morgane; Dervaux, B.; Pagès, Arnaud; Deniès, Fanette; Havet, Nathalie; Perrier, Lionel

doi:10.1016/j.respe.2018.02.003

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative variables were compared using the χ 2 test (or Fisher’s test if the expected values were < 5). Continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test, which was also used for cost comparisons since non-parametric statistical tests are not recommended [ 31 ]. We used the difference in risk of death and logistic regression model to compare deaths at 30 days and 90 days, allowing estimation of odds ratios with their 95% confidence intervals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This curve is used to represent the probability that the VATS strategy is efficient when compared to the thoracotomy strategy (y-axis) as a function of different possible values of society’s Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) for an additional health unit (x-axis). A sensitivity analysis was performed using multiple imputation by chained equation method in order to take into account patients with missing data [ 31 ]. As done previously, this was followed by bootstrap analyses (10,000 replications) to construct the 95% CI for the ICERs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01)

Soilly,

Aho Glélé,

Bernard

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lungsco01 is the first study assessing the real benefits and the medico-economic impact of video-thoracoscopy versus open thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer in the French context. Methods Two hundred and fifty nine adult patients from 10 French centres were randomised in this prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial, between July 29, 2016, and November 24, 2020. Survival from surgical intervention to day 30 and later was compared with the log-rank test. Total quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the EQ-5D-3L®. For medico-economic analyses at 30 days and at 3 months after surgery, resources consumed were valorised (€ 2018) from a hospital perspective. First, since mortality was infrequent and not different between the two arms, cost-minimisation analyses were performed considering only the cost differential. Second, based on complete cases on QALYs, cost-utility analyses were performed taking into account cost and QALY differential. Acceptability curves and the 95% confidence intervals for the incremental ratios were then obtained using the non-parametric bootstrap method (10,000 replications). Sensitivity analyses were performed using multiple imputations with the chained equation method. Results The average cumulative costs of thoracotomy were lower than those of video-thoracoscopy at 30 days (€9,730 (SD = 3,597) vs. €11,290 (SD = 4,729)) and at 3 months (€9,863 (SD = 3,508) vs. €11,912 (SD = 5,159)). In the cost-utility analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratio was €19,162 per additional QALY gained at 30 days (€36,733 at 3 months). The acceptability curve revealed a 64% probability of efficiency at 30 days for video-thoracoscopy, at a widely-accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000 (34% at 3 months). Ratios increased after multiple imputations, implying a higher cost for video-thoracoscopy for an additional QALY gain (ratios: €26,015 at 30 days, €42,779 at 3 months). Conclusions Given our results, the economic efficiency of video-thoracoscopy at 30 days remains fragile at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25,000/QALY. The economic efficiency is not established beyond that time horizon. The acceptability curves given will allow decision-makers to judge the probability of efficiency of this technology at other willingness-to-pay thresholds. Trial registration NCT02502318.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01)

Soilly,

Aho Glélé,

Bernard

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the probabilistic analysis, costs were assumed to follow γ distributions and probabilities β distributions. Bootstrapping with 1000 samples was used to simulate a 95% CI for the difference in costs . All model variables were included in the analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bootstrapping with 1000 samples was used to simulate a 95% CI for the difference in costs. 38 All model variables were included in the analysis.…”

Section: Statistical Analysis Treatment Cost Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated Costs Associated With Management of Otosclerosis With Hearing Aids vs Surgery in Europe

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Surgery and hearing aids have similar outcomes in terms of hearing acuity but differ in terms of cost, aesthetics, and patient quality of life. The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of otosclerosis treatments have never been studied in Europe.OBJECTIVES To compare the estimated mean costs per patient over 10 years of surgery vs hearing aids for the treatment of otosclerosis and to estimate the budget impact of an increase in the proportion of patients receiving surgical treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This economic evaluation analyzed French and Europeanepidemiological data on the surgical management of symptomatic otosclerosis and compared them with data from the literature to build economic models. The analysis was conducted in January 2021.EXPOSURES Two care pathways were considered in the treatment of otosclerosis, either hearing aid or surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESCosts were studied over 10 years using Markov models of the 2 care pathways (hearing aid vs surgery). The budget impact analysis was performed over 5 and 10 years, assuming a 1-percentage point yearly increase in the proportion of patients receiving surgical treatment. RESULTSOver 10 years, the estimated mean cost per patient was significantly lower in the surgery group compared with the hearing aid group (€3446.

show abstract

“…Costs are key inputs into any health economic evaluation. Depending on the perspective and time horizon of the evaluation as well as available data, costs can be obtained from a variety of sources or calculated using several different approaches [1][2][3][4][5]. As discussed by Hoerger [6] in the context of cost-effectiveness modeling of diabetes, these costing approaches are neither standardized nor straightforward, so the choice of costs may be associated with uncertainty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

Pöhlmann¹,

Norrbacka²,

Boye

et al. 2020

Eur J Health Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes. Methods A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications. Results An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources. Conclusions This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

show abstract

Méthodes d’analyse et de traitement des données de coût : approches par « micro-costing » et « gross-costing »

Cited by 5 publications

References 44 publications

Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01)

Medico-economic impact of thoracoscopy versus thoracotomy in lung cancer: multicentre randomised controlled trial (Lungsco01)

Estimated Costs Associated With Management of Otosclerosis With Hearing Aids vs Surgery in Europe

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About