An economic evaluation of the healthcare cost of tinnitus management in the UK.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard treatment pathway for tinnitus patients in the UK. Possible therapies include education and reassurance, cognitive behavioural therapies, modified tinnitus retraining therapy (education and sound enrichment), or amplification of external sound using hearing aids. However, the effectiveness of most therapies is somewhat controversial. As health services come under economic pressure to deploy resources more effectively there is an increasing need to demonstrate the value of tinnitus therapies, and how value may be continuously enhanced. The objective of this project was to map out existing clinical practice, estimate the NHS costs associated with the management approaches used, and obtain initial indicative estimates of cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Current treatment pathways, costs and health outcomes were determined from the tinnitus literature, national statistics, a patient survey, and expert opinion. These were used to create an Excel-based economic model of therapy options for tinnitus patients. The probabilities associated with the likelihood of an individual patient receiving a particular combination of therapies was used to calculate the average cost of treatment per patient, average health outcome per patient measured in QALYs gained, and cost-effectiveness, measured by the average cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: The average cost of tinnitus treatment per patient per year is GB£717, equating to an NHS healthcare bill of GB£750 million per year. Across all pathways, tinnitus therapy costs £10,600 per QALY gained. Results were relatively insensitive to restrictions on access to cognitive behaviour therapy, and a subsequent reliance on other therapies. CONCLUSIONS: NHS provisions for tinnitus are cost-effective against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effective threshold. Most interventions help, but education alone offers very small QALY gains. The most cost-effective therapies in the model were delivered within audiology.

Economic analysis of temperature-controlled laminar airflow (TLA) for the treatment of patients with severe persistent allergic asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic asthma is a significant burden for individual sufferers, adversely impacting their quality of working and social life, as well as being a major cost to the National Health Service (NHS). Temperature-controlled laminar airflow (TLA) therapy provides asthma patients at BTS/SIGN step 4/5 an add-on treatment option that is non-invasive and has been shown in clinical studies to improve quality of life for patients with poorly controlled allergic asthma. The objective of this study was to quantify the cost-effectiveness of TLA (Airsonett AB) technology as an add-on to standard asthma management drug therapy in the UK. METHODS: The main performance measure of interest is the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for patients using TLA in addition to usual care versus usual care alone. The incremental cost of TLA use is based on an observational clinical study monitoring the incidence of exacerbations with treatment valued using NHS cost data. The clinical effectiveness, used to derive the incremental QALY data, is based on a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial comprising participants with an equivalent asthma condition. RESULTS: For a clinical cohort of asthma patients as a whole, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is £8998 per QALY gained, that is, within the £20 000/QALY cost-effectiveness benchmark used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Sensitivity analysis indicates that ICER values range from £18 883/QALY for the least severe patients through to TLA being dominant, that is, cost saving as well as improving quality of life, for individuals with the most severe and poorly controlled asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, Airsonett TLA is a cost-effective addition to treatment options for stage 4/5 patients. For high-risk individuals with more severe and less well controlled asthma, the use of TLA therapy to reduce incidence of hospitalisation would be a cost saving to the NHS.

A cost benefit analysis of the Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel for detection of infectious gastroenteritis in hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES: Recent advances in the laboratory detection of infectious diarrhoea allow more rapid and sensitive identification of infected patients. Several commercial multiplex molecular panels are now available and may have significant advantages over culture based techniques. Faster and more sensitive testing of hospitalised patients with suspected infectious gastroenteritis could result in significant efficiencies in the utilisation of isolation facilities, however few studies have examined this potential benefit. We studied the potential clinical and cost benefits of a commercially available molecular panel. METHODS: An eight-month parallel diagnostic study was conducted to measure potential economic benefits of testing hospitalised patients with the Luminex xTAG Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel (GPP) compared with conventional laboratory testing (based on a combination of culture, microscopy and enzyme immunoassay). Laboratory testing costs and patient isolation costs were measured or estimated for 800 patients. RESULTS: Although costing an additional £22,283, use of GPP could enable a reduction in isolation time from 2202 to 1447 days, a saving of £66,765, which more than offsets the additional laboratory testing costs. CONCLUSION: Syndromic testing of patients against a broad panel of organisms using a multiplex molecular panel can both improve detection rates and allow better laboratory workflow practices. Removing patients testing negative using this panel could result in significant patient isolation savings.