Cost effectiveness of recombinant factor VIIa for treatment of intracerebral hemorrhage

Background  

Phase I/II placebo-controlled clinical trials of recombinant Factor VIIa (rFVIIa) suggested that administration of rFVIIa within 4 hours after onset of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is safe, limits ICH growth, and improves outcomes. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa for acute ICH treatment, using published Phase II data. We hypothesized that rFVIIa would have a low marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (mCER) given the poor neurologic outcomes after ICH with conventional management.     

Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE--To estimate the cost effectiveness of different antenatal screening programmes for cystic fibrosis. SETTING--Antenatal clinics and general practices in the United Kingdom. DESIGN--Four components of the screening process were identified: information giving, DNA testing, genetic counselling, and prenatal diagnosis. The component costs were derived from the literature and from a pilot screening study in Yorkshire. The cost of a given screening programme was then obtained by summing the components according to the specific screening strategy adopted (sequential and couple), the proportion of carriers detected by the DNA test, and the uptake of screening. Baseline assumptions were made about the proportion with missing information on carrier status from previous pregnancies (20%), the proportion changing partners between pregnancies (20%), and the uptake of prenatal diagnosis (100%). Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying these assumptions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Cost per affected pregnancy detected. RESULTS--Under the baseline assumptions sequential screening costs between pounds 40,000 and pounds 90,000 per affected pregnancy detected, depending on the carrier detection rate and uptake. Couple screening was more expensive, ranging from pounds 46,000 to pounds 104,000. From the sensitivity analysis a 10% change in the assumed proportion with missing information from a previous pregnancy alters the cost by pounds 4000; a 10% change in the proportion with new partners has a similar effect but only for couple screening; and cost will change directly in proportion to the uptake of prenatal diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS--While economic analysis cannot determine screening policy, the paper provides the NHS with the information on cost effectiveness needed to inform decisions on the introduction of a screening service for cystic fibrosis.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of early zidovudine treatment of HIV infected patients.

OBJECTIVE--To compare cost effectiveness of early and later treatment with zidovudine for patients infected with HIV. DESIGN--Markov chain analysis of cost effectiveness based on results of use of health care and efficacy from a trial of zidovudine treatment. SETTING--Seven Veterans Affairs medical centres in the United States. SUBJECTS--338 patients with symptomatic HIV infection and a lymphocyte count of 200 x 10(6) to 500 x 10(6) CD4 cells/l. INTERVENTIONS--Zidovudine 1500 mg/day started either at recruitment to the trial or when CD4 cell count fell below 200 x 10(6)/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Health care costs and rates of disease progression between six clinical states of HIV infection. RESULTS--Patients given early treatment with zidovudine remained without AIDS for an extra two months at a cost of $10,750 for each extra month without AIDS (at 1991 costs). Cost effectiveness ratio was most sensitive to the cost of zidovudine and to the quality of life of patients receiving early treatment. At treatment of 500 mg/day the cost effectiveness ratio for early treatment was $5432 for each extra month without AIDS. Patients given early treatment experienced more side effects, and if their quality of life was devalued by 8% compared with patients treated later the two treatments were equivalent in terms of quality adjusted months of life without AIDS. CONCLUSIONS--Early treatment with zidovudine is expensive and is very sensitive to the cost of zidovudine and to potential reductions in quality of life of patients who experience side effects. Doctors should reconsider early treatment with zidovudine for patients who experience side effects that substantially compromise their quality of life.     

Randomised controlled trial comparing problem solving treatment with amitriptyline and placebo for major depression in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether, in the treatment of major depression in primary care, a brief psychological treatment (problem solving) was (a) as effective as antidepressant drugs and more effective than placebo; (b) feasible in practice; and (c) acceptable to patients. DESIGN--Randomised controlled trial of problem solving treatment, amitriptyline plus standard clinical management, and drug placebo plus standard clinical management. Each treatment was delivered in six sessions over 12 weeks. SETTING--Primary care in Oxfordshire. SUBJECTS--91 patients in primary care who had major depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Observer and self reported measures of severity of depression, self reported measure of social outcome, and observer measure of psychological symptoms at six and 12 weeks; self reported measure of patient satisfaction at 12 weeks. Numbers of patients recovered at six and 12 weeks. RESULTS--At six and 12 weeks the difference in score on the Hamilton rating scale for depression between problem solving and placebo treatments was significant (5.3 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 9.0) and 4.7 (0.4 to 9.0) respectively), but the difference between problem solving and amitriptyline was not significant (1.8 (-1.8 to 5.5) and 0.9 (-3.3 to 5.2) respectively). At 12 weeks 60% (18/30) of patients given problem solving treatment had recovered on the Hamilton scale compared with 52% (16/31) given amitriptyline and 27% (8/30) given placebo. Patients were satisfied with problem solving treatment; all patients who completed treatment (28/30) rated the treatment as helpful or very helpful. The six sessions of problem solving treatment totalled a mean therapy time of 3 1/2 hours. CONCLUSIONS--As a treatment for major depression in primary care, problem solving treatment is effective, feasible, and acceptable to patients.     

Cost effectiveness of fibrosis assessment prior to treatment for chronic hepatitis C patients

Background and Aims

Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a liver disease affecting over 3 million Americans. Liver biopsy is the gold standard for assessing liver fibrosis and is used as a benchmark for initiating treatment, though it is expensive and carries risks of complications. FibroTest is a non-invasive biomarker assay for fibrosis, proposed as a screening alternative to biopsy.

Methods

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of FibroTest and liver biopsy used alone or sequentially for six strategies followed by treatment of eligible U.S. patients: FibroTest only; FibroTest with liver biopsy for ambiguous results; FibroTest followed by biopsy to rule in; or to rule out significant fibrosis; biopsy only (recommended practice); and treatment without screening. We developed a Markov model of chronic HCV that tracks fibrosis progression. Outcomes were expressed as expected lifetime costs (2009 USD), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

Results

Treatment of chronic HCV without fibrosis screening is preferred for both men and women. For genotype 1 patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, the ICERs are $5,400/QALY (men) and $6,300/QALY (women) compared to FibroTest only; the ICERs increase to $27,200/QALY (men) and $30,000/QALY (women) with the addition of telaprevir. For genotypes 2 and 3, treatment is more effective and less costly than all alternatives. In clinical settings where testing is required prior to treatment, FibroTest only is more effective and less costly than liver biopsy. These results are robust to multi-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Early treatment of chronic HCV is superior to the other fibrosis screening strategies. In clinical settings where testing is required, FibroTest screening is a cost-effective alternative to liver biopsy.