A cost-utility analysis of two Clostridioides difficile infection guideline treatment pathways.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment guidelines are key drivers of prescribing practice in the management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), but recommendations on best practice can vary. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare the treatment pathway recommended by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) guideline with the pathway proposed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. METHODS: A decision tree modelling approach was adopted to reflect the treatment pathway for CDI as outlined in ESCMID and NICE guidelines. Patients experiencing a CDI infection received up to three treatments per infection to achieve a response and could subsequently experience up to two recurrences. Data on patient demographics, treatment response, recurrence, utilities, CDI-related mortality, and costs were taken from published literature. RESULTS: The ESCMID treatment pathway was cost-effective versus the NICE treatment pathway at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4931. Cost-effectiveness was driven by differences in index infection recommendations (ESCMID recommends fidaxomicin as first-line treatment whereas NICE recommends vancomycin). The model results were robust to variations in inputs investigated in scenarios and sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ESCMID guideline treatment strategy had a 100% likelihood of being cost-effective versus the NICE treatment strategy. DISCUSSION: Compared with the NICE guideline, the ESCMID guideline recommendations for treating an index CDI represent the most cost-effective use of healthcare resources from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapies, and consequences for decision-making in the end-stage renal disease treatment pathway.

OBJECTIVES: Comparative economic assessments of renal replacement therapies (RRT) are common and often used to inform national policy in the management of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study aimed to assess existing cost-effectiveness analyses of dialysis modalities and consider whether the methods applied and results obtained reflect the complexities of the real-world treatment pathway experienced by ESRD patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness studies of dialysis modalities from 2005 onward by searching Embase, MEDLINE, EBM reviews, and EconLit. Economic evaluations were included if they compared distinct dialysis modalities (e.g. in-centre haemodialysis [ICHD], home haemodialysis [HHD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]). RESULTS: In total, 19 cost-effectiveness studies were identified. There was considerable heterogeneity in perspectives, time horizon, discounting, utility values, sources of clinical and economic data, and extent of clinical and economic elements included. The vast majority of studies included an incident dialysis patient population. All studies concluded that home dialysis treatment options were cost-effective interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar findings across studies, there are a number of uncertainties about which dialysis modalities represent the most cost-effective options for patients at different points in the care pathway. Most studies included an incident patient cohort; however, in clinical practice, patients may switch between different treatment modalities over time according to their clinical need and personal circumstances. Promoting health policies through financial incentives in renal care should reflect the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive approach that considers different RRTs along the patient pathway; however, no such evidence is currently available.

A cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis: a Scottish perspective.

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a UV-induced, pre-malignant skin condition that is common in adults over 60 years of age with fair skin in Scotland. The most commonly prescribed first-line treatment for AK in Scotland is currently diclofenac gel (3 %). Ingenol mebutate gel is a recently developed topical therapy available in two strengths for the treatment of AK lesions on the face and scalp (150 mcg/g once daily for 3 consecutive days) or trunk and extremities (500 mcg/g once daily for 2 consecutive days). OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of two strengths of ingenol mebutate gel developed to treat AK lesions on the face and scalp (150 mcg/g once daily for 3 consecutive days) or trunk and extremities (500 mcg/g once daily for 2 consecutive days) with other first-line AK therapies including diclofenac gel, 5-FU, 5-FU/salicylic acid, and cryotherapy for the first-line treatment of AK in adult patients, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision-tree approach to calculate the costs and benefits of different treatment strategies for AK on the face and scalp or trunk and limbs over a 12-month time horizon. Data on the relative efficacy of treatments were obtained from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Utility scores and resource-use data were obtained from published sources. RESULTS: Over 12 months, ingenol mebutate 150 mcg/g gel and 500 mcg/g gel were cost-effective compared with the most commonly used topical therapy in Scotland, diclofenac (3 %) gel, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, with a minimal additional cost of £43 and £105, respectively per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Ingenol mebutate gel is a cost-effective therapy for the first-line treatment of AK from a Scottish NHS perspective.