Setting a tariff for IVF and ICSI treatment: a cost analysis.

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are available in Scotland through the National Health Service (NHS) according to specific criteria. There is no standardised NHS tariff for these treatments in Scotland, and variation exists amongst different centres providing NHS services. The aim of this study was to calculate the mean cost of IVF and ICSI cycles for NHS-funded treatment in Scotland. A detailed cost analysis of fresh and frozen cycles was performed, and a breakdown of the various cost components was presented. A deterministic approach was applied using NHS-funded individual cycle data from 2015-2018 and aggregate data. All costs were calculated in UK pounds sterling (£- using 2018 prices). Resource use was assigned to individual cycles based on cycle-level data or expert-informed assumptions; whenever needed, average aggregate costs were assigned to cycles. A total of 9442 NHS-funded cycles were included in the analysis. The average cost of fresh IVF and ICSI cycles was £3247 [£1526-£4215] and £3473 [£1526-£4416], respectively. Frozen cycles averaged £938 [£272-£1085]. This data can be useful to decision-makers, especially where IVF/ICSI is publicly funded, as it delivers a detailed IVF/ICSI cost breakdown. It is an opportunity for other authorities to estimate IVF/ICSI costs, as the methods applied are clear and reproducible.

Cost of Illness in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted in Three Brazilian Public Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: The severity and transmissibility of COVID-19 justifies the need to identify the factors associated with its cost of illness (CoI). This study aimed to identify CoI, cost predictors, and cost drivers in the management of patients with COVID-19 from hospital and Brazil's Public Health System (SUS) perspectives. METHODS: This is a multicenter study that evaluated the CoI in patients diagnosed of COVID-19 who reached hospital discharge or died before being discharged between March and September 2020. Sociodemographic, clinical, and hospitalization data were collected to characterize and identify predictors of costs per patients and cost drivers per admission. RESULTS: A total of 1084 patients were included in the study. For hospital perspective, being overweight or obese, being between 65 and 74 years old, or being male showed an increased cost of 58.4%, 42.9%, and 42.5%, respectively. From SUS perspective, the same predictors of cost per patient increase were identified. The median cost per admission was estimated at US$359.78 and US$1385.80 for the SUS and hospital perspectives, respectively. In addition, patients who stayed between 1 and 4 days in the intensive care unit (ICU) had 60.9% higher costs than non-ICU patients; these costs significantly increased with the length of stay (LoS). The main cost driver was the ICU-LoS and COVID-19 ICU daily for hospital and SUS perspectives, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors of increased cost per patient at admission identified were overweight or obesity, advanced age, and male sex, and the main cost driver identified was the ICU-LoS. Time-driven activity-based costing studies, considering outpatient, inpatient, and long COVID-19, are needed to optimize our understanding about cost of COVID-19.

Economic evaluation of treatments for chronic hepatitis B

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility study of adefovir, entecavir, interferon alpha, pegylated interferon alpha, lamivudine and tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B in the context of Brazilian Public Health Care System. A systematic review was carried out for efficacy and safety. Another review was performed to collect utility data and transition probabilities between health states. A Markov model was developed in a time horizon of 40 years with annual cycles for three groups of: HBeAg positive, HBeAg negative, and all patients. These strategies were compared to a fourth group that received no treatment. Discount rates of 5% were applied and sensitivity analyses were performed. Tenofovir offered the best cost-utility ratio for the three evaluated models: U$397, U$385 and U$384 (per QALY, respectively, for HBeAg positive, negative, and all patients). All other strategies were completely dominated because they showed higher costs and lower effectiveness than tenofovir. The sequence of cost-utility in the three models was: tenofovir, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, pegylated interferon alpha, and interferon alpha. In the sensitivity analysis, adefovir showed lower cost-utility than telbivudine in some situations. The study has some limitations, primarily related to the creation of scenarios and modeling. In this study, tenofovir presented the best cost-utility ratio. The results obtained in this study will be valuable in decision-making and in the review of the clinical protocol, mainly involving the allocation of available resources for health care.

Economic evaluation of treatments for chronic hepatitis B.

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-utility study of adefovir, entecavir, interferon alpha, pegylated interferon alpha, lamivudine and tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B in the context of Brazilian Public Health Care System. A systematic review was carried out for efficacy and safety. Another review was performed to collect utility data and transition probabilities between health states. A Markov model was developed in a time horizon of 40 years with annual cycles for three groups of: HBeAg positive, HBeAg negative, and all patients. These strategies were compared to a fourth group that received no treatment. Discount rates of 5% were applied and sensitivity analyses were performed. Tenofovir offered the best cost-utility ratio for the three evaluated models: U$397, U$385 and U$384 (per QALY, respectively, for HBeAg positive, negative, and all patients). All other strategies were completely dominated because they showed higher costs and lower effectiveness than tenofovir. The sequence of cost-utility in the three models was: tenofovir, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir, telbivudine, pegylated interferon alpha, and interferon alpha. In the sensitivity analysis, adefovir showed lower cost-utility than telbivudine in some situations. The study has some limitations, primarily related to the creation of scenarios and modeling. In this study, tenofovir presented the best cost-utility ratio. The results obtained in this study will be valuable in decision-making and in the review of the clinical protocol, mainly involving the allocation of available resources for health care.

An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions.

BACKGROUND: In the past 20 years, many studies have evaluated the impact of pharmaceutical practices on clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes. However, few studies have critically analysed the primary studies and published reviews regarding pharmaceutical practices. AIM OF THE REVIEW: The aim of this review is to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on pharmacist health interventions published from 1990 to 2009. METHOD: The data sources used were MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Scientific Electronic Library Online, and Scopus. Studies in which interventions were done by a pharmacist or in which the pharmacist was a health team member were included. There were no restrictions based on the type of intervention, country or languages. The data extracted by two independent reviewers were the following: publication journal, language, publication year, search strategy, study design, quality assessment of the included studies, disease, study settings, intervention description, and outcome measures. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was accessed with AMSTAR. RESULTS: A total of 151 articles were found from which 31 were included. An increase in the number of publications occurred after 2005. Nineteen reviews evaluated the quality of primary studies, and 6 of these reviews performed meta-analyses. The methodological quality of reviews was considered to be moderate (52.8 ± 22.3% for reviewer #1 and 54.8 ± 16.5% for reviewer #2); of the 31 included reviews, 7, 18 and 6 reviews had high, moderate and poor quality, respectively. CONCLUSION: The quality of published reviews varies from moderate to poor. Improvements in the study design can be achieved by following specific recommendations, such as clearly describing the methods, performing the data extraction in duplicate, researching at least two databases, listing the included and excluded studies, employing tables with the main studies data and evaluating and reporting the scientific quality of the included articles.

Cost-effectiveness of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.

Cost-effectiveness of telbivudine versus lamivudine for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Chronic hepatitis B is a highly prevalent disease worldwide, leading to serious consequences if not properly treated. Six treatment options for chronic hepatitis B are currently provided by the Brazilian public health system. Telbivudine is a nucleoside analogue that is neither included in the Brazilian clinical protocol nor in the therapeutic guidelines for chronic hepatitis B. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the viewpoint of the Brazilian public system, comparing it to lamivudine. METHODS: A Markov model was used to project lifetime complications and costs of treatment with lamivudine or telbivudine for chronic hepatitis B in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. To evaluate disease progression, probabilities and utilities of virologic response, virologic resistance, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment, interruption of treatment, death and seroconversion were collected in systematic reviews. Costs were collected in DATASUS, ABC da Saúde and scientific literature. RESULTS: Higher rate of virologic response and seroconversion was obtained with telbivudine, and also higher values of quality adjusted life years. However lamivudine is associated with lower costs and also lower cost-effectiveness values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for telbivudine, when compared with lamivudine, were US$ 30,575 and US$ 40,457, respectively for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. CONCLUSION: In chronic hepatitis B lamivudine is a more cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy when compared with telbivudine.

Avaliação econômica das anticitocinas adalimumabe, etanercepte e infliximabe no tratamento da artrite reumatoide no Estado do Paraná / Economic evaluation of anticitokines adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Paraná State, Brazil

Este estudo objetivou realizar uma avaliação econômica das anticitocinas adalimumabe (ADA), etanercepte (ETA) e infliximabe (IFX) para o tratamento da artrite reumatoide no Estado do Paraná, sob a perspectiva do SUS. Os dados de eficácia e segurança dos tratamentos foram buscados na literatura, e os custos foram calculados com valores gastos pelo SUS para cada um dos tratamentos. Foi elaborado o modelo de Markov para obter a relação custo-efetividade de cada tratamento. A relação custo-efetividade incremental (ICER) comparado ao tratamento padrão também foi calculada para cada anticitocina. Análises de sensibilidade e taxas de desconto foram aplicadas. Na avaliação custo-efetividade, encontraram-se custos por QALY de R$ 511.633,00, R$ 437.486,00 e R$ 657.593,00 para ADA, ETA e IFX, respectivamente. O ICER por QALY foi R$ 628.124,00, R$ 509.974,00 e R$ 965.927,00 para ADA, ETA e IFX, respectivamente. Nas análises de sensibilidade, o ETA e o ADA apresentaram valores próximos. Cabe aos gestores públicos e aos médicos prescritores a escolha adequada para cada paciente, entre os tratamentos disponibilizados.

This study aimed to perform an economic evaluation of anticytokines adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA) and infliximab (IFX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the State of Parana, in Brazil, in the perspective of the Brazilian Unified Health System. Data on efficacy and safety of treatment were collected in literature, and costs were calculated on the amounts spent by the Government for each treatment. A Markov model was performed to get the cost-effectiveness of each treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness relationship (ICER) compared to a standard treatment was also calculated for each anticytokine. Sensitivity analysis and discount rates were applied. In assessing cost-effectiveness we found the following values (cost at R$ per QALY): 511,633.00, 437,486.00 and 657,593.00 (respectively for ADA, ETA and IFX). The ICER (R$ per QALY) was 628,124.00, 509,974.00 and 965,927.00 (for ADA, ETA and IFX). In the sensitivity analysis, ETA and ADA showed similar values. It is for public managers and physicians the choice for each patient, among the treatments available.