The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)? DESIGN: This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of the use of oil-based versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENT(S): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, low risk of tubal pathology. INTERVENTION(S): Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Costs per additional ongoing pregnancy and per live birth within 6 months of randomization, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs). RESULT(S): A total of 1,119 women were randomized to HSG (oil-based contrast, n = 557; water-based contrast, n = 562). After HSG, most women had no additional treatment; a minority had IUI or IVF. In the oil group, 39.7% women had an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months of randomization versus 29.1% women in the water group. There was a 10.7% increase in the live birth rate in the oil group. For ongoing pregnancy, the mean costs per couple were US$2,014 in the oil group and US$1,144 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$8,198 per additional ongoing pregnancy. For live birth, the mean costs per couple were US$11,532 in the oil group and US$8,310 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$30,112 per additional live birth. CONCLUSION(S): Hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast results in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate. If society is willing to pay US$8,198 for an additional ongoing pregnancy, HSG with oil-based contrast is a cost-effective strategy compared with HSG with water-based contrast for infertile, ovulatory women at low risk for tubal pathology. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR 6577 (www.trialregister.nl).

Clinical and economic impact of drug eluting beads in transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Drug eluting beads (DEBs) theoretically improve the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nonetheless, their economic profile has not been assessed. Our retrospective before/after study aimed to compare efficacy, safety and economic profile of two strategies of TACE without (Period 1) or with the possibility of using DEBs (Period 2). METHODS: All HCC patients treated by TACE in our hospital between March 2006 and May 2013 were included. Economic analyses were performed from the French Public Health Insurance point of view according to the French Diagnosis-Related Group prospective payment system and from the analytic accountability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: One hundred and sixty-one patients were included. Median time to treatment failure and overall survival were 13.1 and 23.8 months in Period 1 vs. 14.1 and 30.2 months in Period 2 (P = 0.45 and P = 0.40). Mean hospital durations and tariffs were 14.9 ± 7.7 days and € 11 472 ± 5901 in Period 1 vs. 12.4 ± 8.4 days and € 7654 ± 4625 in Period 2 (P = 0.03 and P < 10(-4) ). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The possibility of using DEBs did not improve the prognosis in HCC patients treated by TACE. Nonetheless, it had a better medico-economic profile.

Medico-economic study of the management of hepatocellular carcinoma by chemo-embolization.

PURPOSE: This study has two aims. The first is to compare conventional lipiodol chemo-embolization (Trans Arterial Chemo-Embolization - TACE) to one using pre-loaded particles (Trans Arterial Chemo-Embolisation-Drug Eluted Bead - TACE-DEB) using a cost minimization study. The second is to define the fundable nature of TACE-DEB and the conditions under which it is cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of patients treated by chemo-embolization (n=31: TACE; n=32: TACE-DEB) during the year 2010. The cost minimization study was conducted from the hospital perspective. Direct medical costs were calculated and compared using the readjusted ENCC (National Studies of Costs by Common Methodology) method. The affordability of the two techniques and definition of a cost-effective hypothesis (break-even point) were also established. RESULTS: All DRGs combined, lengths of stay (TACE: 4.90 ± 3.36; TACE-DEB: 5.03 ± 3.36) does not change significantly. An average upper mean cost for TACE-DEB is described (TACE: 2869.05 €; TACE-DEB: 3960.10 €). The affordability calculations in the study show that, overall, TACE-DEB can be funded regardless of DRG. A ratio of 1.3 procedures using the conventional (TACE) method would enable TACE-DEB procedures to be funded. CONCLUSION: This medico-economic analysis demonstrates that the TACE-DEB procedure is fundable.