Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stockholm 3 Testing Compared to PSA as the Primary Blood Test in the Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Pathway: A Decision Tree Approach.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of using Stockholm 3 (STHLM3) testing compared to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. METHODS: We created a decision tree model for PSA (current standard) and STHLM3 (new alternative). Cost effectiveness was evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of male individuals aged 50-69 years. The study applied a Danish hospital perspective with a time frame restricted to the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, beginning with the initial PSA/STHLM3 test, and ending with biopsy and histopathological diagnosis. Estimated values from the decision-analytical model were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base-case analysis. RESULTS: The model-based analysis revealed that STHLM3 testing was more effective than the PSA, but also more costly, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €511.7 (95% credible interval, 359.9-674.3) for each additional correctly classified individual. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, variations in the cost of STHLM3 had the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, all iterations were positioned in the north-east quadrant of the incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplot. At a willingness to pay of €700 for an additional correctly classified individual, STHLM3 had a 100% probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the PSA test as the initial testing modality in the prostate cancer diagnostic workup, STHLM3 testing showed improved incremental effectiveness, however, at additional costs. The results were sensitive to the cost of the STHLM3 test; therefore, a lower cost of the STHLM3 test would improve its cost effectiveness compared with PSA tests.

Cost Effectiveness of Internet-Delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Patients with Severe Health Anxiety: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health anxiety is a prevalent and debilitating disorder associated with extensive use of healthcare services and reduced quality of life (QoL). Regional variability in specialised clinics or specialist healthcare providers limits access to evidence-based treatment, which may be overcome by internet-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (iACT). OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the cost effectiveness of iACT for severe health anxiety in adults. METHODS: Based on a Danish randomised controlled trial (March 2016-March 2017), the economic evaluation compared costs and effects between iACT and an active control condition (iFORUM). Effectiveness was measured using self-report questionnaires. The cost analysis applied a societal perspective. Resource use and healthcare costs were extracted from the Danish National Registries. Linear regression analysis was applied using change in costs/effectiveness outcomes as the dependant variable. Time, group, and interaction between time and group were independent variables. The primary outcome was the proportion of clinically significant improvements, defined as a ≥ 25% reduction in two measures of health anxiety. The probability of cost effectiveness was presented in a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for a range of threshold values for willingness to pay. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected in healthcare costs between groups; however, the iACT group significantly improved in all effectiveness outcomes. The economic analysis showed that, from the healthcare perspective, iACT was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €33 per additional case of clinically significant improvement compared with iFORUM and that, from the societal perspective, iACT dominated iFORUM because it was more effective and less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant differences in costs between groups; however, iACT for severe health anxiety may be cost effective, as evidenced by significant differences in effect. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT02735434.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Three Different Automated Medication Systems Implemented in a Danish Hospital Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Automated medication systems have been found to reduce errors in the medication process, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of such systems. The objective of this study was to perform a model-based indirect cost-effectiveness comparison of three different, real-world automated medication systems compared with current standard practice. METHODS: The considered automated medication systems were a patient-specific automated medication system (psAMS), a non-patient-specific automated medication system (npsAMS), and a complex automated medication system (cAMS). The economic evaluation used original effect and cost data from prospective, controlled, before-and-after studies of medication systems implemented at a Danish hematological ward and an acute medical unit. Effectiveness was described as the proportion of clinical and procedural error opportunities that were associated with one or more errors. An error was defined as a deviation from the electronic prescription, from standard hospital policy, or from written procedures. The cost assessment was based on 6-month standardization of observed cost data. The model-based comparative cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted with system-specific assumptions of the effect size and costs in scenarios with consumptions of 15,000, 30,000, and 45,000 doses per 6-month period. RESULTS: With 30,000 doses the cost-effectiveness model showed that the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per avoided clinical error was €24 for the psAMS, €26 for the npsAMS, and €386 for the cAMS. Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the three systems in relation to different valuations of an avoided error showed that the psAMS was the most cost-effective system regardless of error type or valuation. CONCLUSION: The model-based indirect comparison against the conventional practice showed that psAMS and npsAMS were more cost-effective than the cAMS alternative, and that psAMS was more cost-effective than npsAMS.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Automated Medication System Implemented in a Danish Hospital Setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an automated medication system (AMS) implemented in a Danish hospital setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a controlled before-and-after effectiveness study with one control ward and one intervention ward. The primary outcome measure was the number of errors in the medication administration process observed prospectively before and after implementation. To determine the difference in proportion of errors after implementation of the AMS, logistic regression was applied with the presence of error(s) as the dependent variable. Time, group, and interaction between time and group were the independent variables. The cost analysis used the hospital perspective with a short-term incremental costing approach. The total 6-month costs with and without the AMS were calculated as well as the incremental costs. The number of avoided administration errors was related to the incremental costs to obtain the cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per avoided administration error. RESULTS: The AMS resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the proportion of errors in the intervention ward compared with the control ward. The cost analysis showed that the AMS increased the ward's 6-month cost by €16,843. The cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at €2.01 per avoided administration error, €2.91 per avoided procedural error, and €19.38 per avoided clinical error. CONCLUSIONS: The AMS was effective in reducing errors in the medication administration process at a higher overall cost. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the AMS was associated with affordable cost-effectiveness rates.