A risk adjusted cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative models of nurse involvement in obesity management in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Controlled evaluations are subject to uncertainty regarding their replication in the real world, particularly around systems of service provision. Using routinely collected data, we undertook a risk adjusted cost-effectiveness (RAC-E) analysis of alternative applied models of primary health care for the management of obese adult patients. Models were based on the reported level of involvement of practice nurses (registered or enrolled nurses working in general practice) in the provision of clinical-based activities. DESIGN AND METHODS: Linked, routinely collected clinical data describing clinical outcomes (weight, BMI, and obesity-related complications) and resource use (primary care, pharmaceutical, and hospital resource use) were collected. Potential confounders were controlled for using propensity weighted regression analyses. RESULTS: Relative to low level involvement of practice nurses in the provision of clinical-based activities to obese patients, high level involvement was associated with lower costs and better outcomes (more patients losing weight, and larger mean reductions in BMI). Excluding hospital costs, high level practice nurse involvement was associated with slightly higher costs. Incrementally, the high level model gets one additional obese patient to lose weight at an additional cost of $6,741, and reduces mean BMI by an additional one point at an additional cost of $563 (upper 95% confidence interval $1,547). CONCLUSION: Converted to quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains, the results provide a strong indication that increased involvement of practice nurses in clinical activities is associated with additional health benefits that are achieved at reasonable additional cost. Dissemination activities and incentives are required to encourage general practices to better integrate practice nurses in the active provision of clinical services.

Cost-utility analysis of deferasirox compared to standard therapy with desferrioxamine for patients requiring iron chelation therapy in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-utility of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to standard therapy using desferrioxamine (Desferal) for the control of iron overload in patients receiving frequent blood transfusions. The perspective adopted was that of the National Health Service in the UK. METHODS: Phase II/III clinical trials have shown deferasirox in the recommended doses of 20-30 mg/kg per day to have similar efficacy to desferrioxamine at equivalent doses in the control of chronic iron overload. The main difference between them is in the mode of administration. Desferrioxamine is administered parenterally as a slow subcutaneous infusion typically infused 8-12 hours a day for 5-7 days a week. In comparison, deferasirox provides 24 hour chelation via a once daily oral tablet dispersed in water or juice. An excel based economic model was developed to evaluate the annual healthcare costs and quality of life, or utility, benefits associated with differences in mode of administration, using beta-thalassaemia as the reference case. A community utility study using time trade-off methods was performed to determine utility outcomes associated with iron chelation therapy (ICT) mode of administration. RESULTS: In the reference case (patient mean weight 42 kg), deferasirox 'dominated' desferrioxamine, i.e. resulted in lower net costs and higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Drug dose and cost is patient weight related. Incremental cost per QALY gained was pound 7775 for patients with a mean weight of 62 kg. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-utility analysis did not take drug compliance into account. However, Deferasirox is cost-effective compared to standard iron chelation therapy with desferrioxamine, due to the cost and quality of life benefits derived from a simpler and more convenient oral mode of administration.

Economic evaluation alongside n-of-1 trials: getting closer to the margin.

The n-of-1 trial is a particularly flexible form of randomized controlled trial that involves a single patient receiving multiple episodes of alternative therapies. Although n-of-1 trials are only applicable in certain treatment areas, the collection of economic data within such trials may provide unique advantages. This paper illustrates the issues around the use of economic n-of-1 trials with a hypothetical example, and discusses their potential for the estimation of individualized cost-effectiveness.