Introduction of a hexavalent vaccine containing acellular pertussis into the national immunization program for infants in Peru: a cost-consequence analysis of vaccination coverage.

BACKGROUND: Infant vaccination coverage rates in Peru have declined in recent years, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Introduction of the fully-liquid diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP)-inactivated polio vaccine (IPV)-hepatitis B (HB)-Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-Hib) in Peru's infant National Immunization Program may help improve coverage. We evaluated costs and healthcare outcomes, including coverage, of switching from a pentavalent vaccine containing whole-cell pertussis component (DTwP-HB-Hib) plus IPV/oral polio vaccine (IPV/OPV) to the hexavalent vaccine for the primary vaccination scheme (2, 4 and 6 months). METHODS: The analysis was performed over a 5-year period on a cohort of children born in Peru in 2020 (N = 494,595). Four scenarios were considered: the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme (S1); replacing the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme with the hexavalent scheme (S2); expanded delivery of the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme (S3); expanded delivery of the hexavalent scheme (S4). Vaccine coverage and incidence of adverse reactions (ARs) were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations and previous estimates from the literature. Cases of vaccine-preventable diseases were estimated using a Markov model. Logistical and healthcare costs associated with these outcomes were estimated. Impact of key variables (including coverage rates, incidence of ARs and vaccine prices) on costs was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The overall cost from a public health payer perspective associated with the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV vaccine scheme (S1) was estimated at $56,719,350, increasing to $61,324,263 (+ 8.1%), $59,121,545 (+ 4.2%) and $64,872,734 (+ 14.4%) in scenarios S2, S3 and S4, respectively. Compared with the status quo (S1), coverage rates were estimated to increase by 3.1% points with expanded delivery alone, and by 9.4 and 14.3% points, if the hexavalent vaccine is deployed (S2 and S4, respectively). In both scenarios with the hexavalent vaccine (S2 and S4), pertussis cases would also be 5.7% and 8.7% lower, and AR rates would decrease by 32%. The cost per protected child would be reduced when the hexavalent vaccine scheme. Incidence of ARs was an important driver of cost variability in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the hexavalent vaccine in Peru's National Immunization Program has a positive public health cost consequence.

Cost-consequence analysis of continuous denosumab therapy for osteoporosis treatment in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Insurance reimbursement provisions in South Korea limit osteoporosis medication availability for patients with T-scores exceeding - 2.5. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact and fracture prevention of continuous denosumab therapy until a T-score>-2.0 (Dmab-C strategy), versus discontinuation of denosumab after reaching T-score>-2.5 (Dmab-D strategy) in osteoporosis patients. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis from a Korean healthcare system perspective was performed using a newly developed Markov model. The incidence of vertebral and non-vertebral fracture, fracture-related deaths, drug costs, and fracture-treatment costs were estimated and compared between Dmab-C and Dmab-D strategy over a lifetime in eligible patients aged 55 years. RESULTS: Base-case analysis revealed that Dmab-C prevented 32.21 vertebral fracture (VF) and 12.43 non-VF events per 100 patients over a lifetime, while reducing 1.29 fracture-related deaths. Lifetime direct healthcare cost saving per patient was KRW 1,354,655 if Dmab-C replaces Dmab-D. When productivity losses were considered, Dmab-C saved KRW 29,025,949 per patient compared to Dmab-D. The additional treatment costs of Dmab-C could be offset by the higher subsequent treatment costs and fracture treatment costs of Dmab-D. The sensitivity analysis showed consistent patterns with results of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous treatment using denosumab until osteoporosis patients achieve and maintain a T-score of -2.0 would provide greater clinical and economic benefits in terms of fracture prevention and reduced mortality risks compared to outcomes from discontinuing treatment at a T-score of -2.5 or above. This new treatment strategy would effectively lower the risk of fractures and fracture-related mortality, ultimately leading to lower medical expenses.

The allied health rural generalist pathway: a cost consequence analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Rural and remote health workforces face longstanding challenges in Australia. Little is known about the economic effectiveness of workforce initiatives to increase recruitment and retention. A two-level allied health rural generalist pathway was introduced as a workforce strategy in regional local health networks (LHNs) in South Australia in 2019. This research measured the resources and outcomes of the pathway following its introduction. METHODS: A multi-phase, mixed-methods study was conducted with a 3-year follow-up period (2019-2022). A cost-consequence analysis was conducted as part of this study. Resources measured included tuition, time for quarantined study, supervision and support, and program manager salary. Outcomes measured included length of tenure, turnover data, career progression, service development time, confidence and competence. RESULTS: Fifteen allied health professional trainees participated in the pathway between 2019 and 2022 and seven completed during this time. Trainees participated for between 3 and 42 months. The average total cost of supporting a level 1 trainee was $34,875 and level 2 was $70,469. The total return on investment within the evaluation period was $317,610 for the level 1 program and $58,680 for the level 2 program. All seven completing trainees continued to work in regional LHNs at the 6-month follow-up phase and confidence and competence to work as a rural generalist increased. CONCLUSION: This research found that the allied health rural generalist pathway has the potential to generate multiple positive outcomes for a relatively small investment and is therefore likely to be a cost-effective workforce initiative.

Cost consequence analysis of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) for urinary incontinence in care home residents alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in more than half of residents of nursing and residential care homes and can have a detrimental impact on dignity and quality of life. Care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. We examined the costs and consequences of delivering TTNS to care home residents in comparison to sham (inactive) electrical stimulation. METHODS: A cost consequence analysis approach was used to assemble and present the resource use and outcome data for the ELECTRIC trial which randomised 406 residents with UI from 37 care homes in the United Kingdom to receive 12 sessions of 30 min of either TTNS or sham (inactive) TTNS. TTNS was administered by care home staff over 6 weeks. Health state utility was measured using DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up. Staff completed a resource use questionnaire at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up, which also assessed use of absorbent pads. RESULTS: HRQoL did not change significantly in either randomised group. Delivery of TTNS was estimated to cost £81.20 per participant, plus training and support costs of £121.03 per staff member. 85% of participants needed toilet assistance as routine, on average requiring one or two staff members to be involved 4 or 5 times in each 24 h. Daily use of mobility aids and other assistive devices to use the toilet were reported. The value of staff time to assist residents to use the toilet (assuming an average of 5 min per resident per visit) was estimated as £19.17 (SD 13.22) for TTNS and £17.30 (SD 13.33) for sham (per resident in a 24-hour period). CONCLUSIONS: Use of TTNS to treat UI in care home residents did not lead to changes in resource use, particularly any reduction in the use of absorbent pads and no cost benefits for TTNS were shown. Managing continence in care homes is labour intensive, requiring both high levels of staff time and use of equipment aids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN98415244, registered 25/04/2018. NCT03248362 (Clinical trial.gov number), registered 14/08//2017.

A framework for local-level economic evaluation to inform implementation decisions: health service interventions to prevent hospital-acquired hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVES: Published evidence on health service interventions should inform decision-making in local health services, but primary effectiveness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are unlikely to reflect contexts other than those in which the evaluations were undertaken. A ten-step framework was developed and applied to use published evidence as the basis for local-level economic evaluations that estimate the expected costs and effects of new service intervention options in specific local contexts. METHODS: Working with a multidisciplinary group of local clinicians, the framework was applied to evaluate intervention options for preventing hospital-acquired hypoglycemia. The framework included: clinical audit and analyses of local health systems data to understand the local context and estimate baseline event rates; pragmatic literature review to identify evidence on relevant intervention options; expert elicitation to adjust published intervention effect estimates to reflect the local context; and modeling to synthesize and calibrate data derived from the disparate data sources. RESULTS: From forty-seven studies identified in the literature review, the working group selected three interventions for evaluation. The local-level economic evaluation generated estimates of intervention costs and a range of cost, capacity and patient outcome-related consequences, which informed working group recommendations to implement two of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The applied framework for modeled local-level economic evaluation was valued by local stakeholders, in particular the structured, formal approach to identifying and interpreting published evidence alongside local data. Key methodological issues included the handling of alternative reported outcomes and the elicitation of the expected intervention effects in the local context.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care in adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): a cost-consequence analysis from an Italian hospital perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare clinical outcomes and costs, to the Italian healthcare system, of three therapeutic options approved in the management of adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs). METHODS: We compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus (both originator and generic products), and sunitinib in patients with advanced GEP-NETs (NET G1 and G2) that had progressed following treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs). A cost-consequence model was developed and validated by a panel of clinical experts from three NET reference centres in Italy. The clinical outcomes included in the model were median progression-free survival and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), as reported in pivotal clinical trials. The costs for acquisition and administration of each treatment, and of managing AEs, were calculated from the perspective of the Italian national health service. Treatment costs per progression-free month were calculated separately for patients with NETs of pancreatic (PanNETs; all three treatments) and gastrointestinal (GI-NETs; [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and everolimus only) origin. RESULTS: In patients with PanNETs, total costs per progression-free month were €2989 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4975 for originator everolimus, €3472 for generic everolimus, and €5337 for sunitinib. In patients with GI-NETs, total costs per progression-free month were €3189 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4990 for originator everolimus, and €3483 for generic everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE was associated with lower costs per progression-free month versus relevant treatment options in patients with GI-NETs or PanNETs (NET G1-G2; progressed following SSA treatment), although acquisition and administration costs are higher. These findings provide further economic arguments in the overall context of treatment decision-making.

Economic Evaluation of Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Interventions to Increase Maternal and Child Dietary Diversity and Nutritional Status in Rural Odisha, India.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) interventions are scarce, limiting assessment of their potential affordability and scalability. OBJECTIVES: We conducted cost-consequence analyses of 3 participatory video-based interventions of fortnightly women's group meetings using the following platforms: 1) NSA videos; 2) NSA and nutrition-specific videos; or 3) NSA videos with a nutrition-specific participatory learning and action (PLA) cycle. METHODS: Interventions were tested in a 32-mo, 4-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial, Upscaling Participatory Action and Videos for Agriculture and Nutrition (UPAVAN) in the Keonjhar district, Odisha, India. Impacts were evaluated in children aged 0-23 mo and their mothers. We estimated program costs using data collected prospectively from expenditure records of implementing and technical partners and societal costs using expenditure assessment data collected from households with a child aged 0-23 mo and key informant interviews. Costs were adjusted for inflation, discounted, and converted to 2019 US$. RESULTS: Total program costs of each intervention ranged from US$272,121 to US$386,907. Program costs per pregnant woman or mother of a child aged 0-23 mo were US$62 for NSA videos, US$84 for NSA and nutrition-specific videos, and US$78 for NSA videos with PLA (societal costs: US$125, US$143, and US$122, respectively). Substantial shares of total costs were attributable to development and delivery of the videos and PLA (52-69%) and quality assurance (25-41%). Relative to control, minimum dietary diversity was higher in the children who underwent the interventions incorporating nutrition-specific videos and PLA (adjusted RRs: 1.19 and 1.27; 95% CIs: 1.03-1.37 and 1.11, 1.46, respectively). Relative to control, minimum dietary diversity in mothers was higher in those who underwent NSA video (1.21 [1.01, 1.45]) and NSA with PLA (1.30 [1.10, 1.53]) interventions. CONCLUSION: NSA videos with PLA can increase both maternal and child dietary diversity and have the lowest cost per unit increase in diet diversity. Building on investments made in developing UPAVAN, cost-efficiency at scale could be increased with less intensive monitoring, reduced startup costs, and integration within existing government programs. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as ISRCTN65922679.

A cost-consequence analysis of normalised advance care planning practices among people with chronic diseases in hospital and community settings.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of international literature concurs that comprehensive and complex Advance Care Planning (ACP) programs involving specially qualified or trained healthcare professionals are effective in increasing documentation of Advance Care Directives (ACDs), improving compliance with patients' wishes and satisfaction with care, and quality of care for patients and their families. Economic analyses of ACDs and ACP have been more sporadic and inconclusive. This study aimed to contribute to the evidence on resource use associated with implementation of ACP and to inform key decision-makers of the resource implications through the conduct of a cost-consequence analysis of the Normalised Advance Care Planning (NACP) trial. METHODS: The outcomes for the economic evaluation included the number of completed "legally binding" ACDs and the number of completed Conversation Cards (CC). The cost analysis assessed the incremental difference in resource utilisation between Usual Practice and the Intervention. Costs have been categorised into: 1) Contract staff costs; 2) Costs associated with the development of the intervention; 3) Implementation costs; 4) Intervention (delivery) costs; and 5) Research costs. RESULTS: The cost incurred for each completed ACD was A$13,980 in the hospital setting and A$1248 in the community setting. The cost incurred for each completed Conversation Card was A$7528 in the hospital setting and A$910 in the community setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-consequence analysis does not support generalisation of the specified intervention within the hospital setting. The trial realised an estimated incremental cost per completed ACD of $1248, within the community setting. This estimate provides an additional benchmark against which decision-makers can assess the value of either 1) this approach towards the realisation of additional completed ACDs; and/or 2) the value of ACP and ACDs more broadly, when this estimate is positioned within the potential health outcomes and downstream health service implications that may arise for people with or without a completed ACD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Trial ID: ACTRN12618001627246 ). The URL of the trial registry record.

Cost-consequence analysis of an intervention for the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in young-onset dementia: Results from the BEYOND-II study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-consequences of an intervention for the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in nursing home residents with young-onset dementia. METHODS: A stepped wedge design was used. The intervention consisted of an educational program and a multidisciplinary care program and was implemented in 13 nursing homes from September 2015 to March 2017. Costs' outcomes included the time investment of the elderly care physician and health care psychologists regarding the management of neuropsychiatric symptoms, residents' psychotropic drug use, nursing staff absenteeism, and costs of the educational program. Composite cost measure contained the sum of costs of staff absenteeism, costs on psychotropic drugs, and costs of the educational program. Costs of time investment were investigated by comparing means. Costs of psychotropic drug use were analyzed with mixed models at resident level and as part of the composite cost measure on unit level. Staff absenteeism was also analyzed at unit level. RESULTS: Compared with care as usual, the mean costs of time invested decreased with €36.79 for the elderly care physician but increased with €46.05 for the health care psychologist in the intervention condition. Mixed model analysis showed no effect of the intervention compared with care as usual on the costs of psychotropic drug use, staff absenteeism, and the composite cost measure. The costs of the educational program were on average €174.13 per resident. CONCLUSION: The intervention did not result in increased costs compared with care as usual. Other aspects, such as the lack of a structured working method, should be taken into account when considering implementation of the intervention.

Post-discharge impact and cost-consequence analysis of prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: secondary results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation may reduce postoperative complications, but sustainability of its health benefits and impact on costs needs further evaluation. Our aim was to assess the midterm clinical impact and costs from a hospital perspective of an endurance-exercise-training-based prehabilitation programme in high-risk patients undergoing major digestive surgery. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis was performed using secondary data from a randomised, blinded clinical trial. The main outcomes assessed were (i) 30-day hospital readmissions, (ii) endurance time (ET) during an exercise testing, and (iii) physical activity by the Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS). Healthcare use for the cost analysis included costs of the prehabilitation programme, hospitalisation, and 30-day emergency room visits and hospital readmissions. RESULTS: We included 125 patients in an intention-to-treat analysis. Prehabilitation showed a protective effect for 30-day hospital readmissions (relative risk: 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-30.0). Prehabilitation-induced enhancement of ET and YPAS remained statistically significant between groups at the end of the 3 and 6 month follow-up periods, respectively (ΔET 205 [151] s; P=0.048) (ΔYPAS 7 [2]; P=0.016). The mean cost of the programme was €389 per patient and did not increment the total costs of the surgical process (€812; CI: 95% -878 - 2642; P=0.365). CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation may result in health value generation. Moreover, it appears to be a protective intervention for 30-day hospital readmissions, and its effects on aerobic capacity and physical activity may show sustainability at midterm. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02024776.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. METHODS: A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. RESULTS: For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). CONCLUSION: The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

Costs and benefits of a school-based health intervention in Portugal.

School-based programmes for preventing childhood obesity have been shown to be effective in improving eating habits and nutritional status, but few intervention programmes with a controlled design have included an economic evaluation. In this study, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to evaluate the costs and the health benefits of the 'Planning Health in School' programme (PHS-pro) implemented in the Northern region of Portugal to 449 children of 10-14 years old. Previous study has showed that after PHS-pro, several anthropometric measures significantly improved in the intervention group (height, waist circumference and waist-height ratio) compared with the control group, followed by significant improvements on soft drinks, fruit and vegetables daily consumptions. Costs were estimated according the two phases of the programme: designing and preparation of schools, and school setting implementation, and included all the direct costs on human and material resources. PHS-pro total costs were estimated as 7915.53€/year with an intervention cost of 36.14€/year/child attending the programme. This is much lower than the direct costs for treating an obese adult in Portugal, which was calculated as 3849.15€/year. A scale-up costing projection for implementing the PHS-pro to a larger young population was estimated to be even lower: 18.18€/year/child. This cost-consequence analysis provided evidence that the PHS-pro was economically feasible especially if compared with the medical costs for treating adult obesity. The PHS-pro can be a beneficial investment and may give a promising contribution to addressing overweight over childhood and adolescence, which are developmental stages that determine adulthood chronic diseases.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.

Impact on costs and outcomes of multi-gene panel testing for advanced solid malignancies: a cost-consequence analysis using linked administrative data.

Background: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care. Methods: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer's perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics. Findings: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Interpretation: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers. Funding: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective 'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

Radiofrequency ablation using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by ablation index versus antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation treatment in China: a cost-consequence analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Patients & methods: We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. Results: STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%) and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.

Cost-Consequence Analysis of Deprescribing to Optimize Health Outcomes for Frail Older People: A Within-Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The structured, clinically supervised withdrawal of medicines, known as deprescribing, is one strategy to address inappropriate polypharmacy. This study aimed to evaluate the costs and consequences of deprescribing in frail older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Australia. DESIGN: A within-trial cost-consequence analysis of a deprescribing intervention-Opti-Med. The Opti-Med double-blind randomized controlled trial of deprescribing included 3 groups: blinded control, blinded intervention, and an open intervention group. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen RACFs in Western Australia and New South Wales. Participants were 303 older people living in participating RACFs from March 2014 to February 2019. METHODS: Analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective. Health economic outcomes assessed include cost saved from deprescribed medicines and the incremental quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were presented in 2022 Australian dollars. RESULTS: The total cost of the Opti-Med intervention was $239.13 per participant. The costs saved through deprescribed medicines over 12 months after adjusting for mortality within the trial period was $328.90 per participant in the blinded intervention group and $164.00 per participant in the open intervention group. On average, the cost of the intervention was more than offset by the cost saved from deprescribed medicines. Extrapolating these findings to the Australian population suggests a potential net cost saving of about $1 to $16 million per annum for the health system nationally. The incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very similar across the 3 groups within the trial period. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Deprescribing for frail older people living in RACFs can be a cost-saving intervention without reducing the quality of life. Systemwide implementation of deprescribing across RACFs in Australia has the potential to improve health care delivery through the cost savings, which could be reapplied to further optimize care within RACFs.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

A cost-consequence model of using the 21-gene assay to identify patients with early-stage node-positive breast cancer who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Patients with early-stage hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative invasive breast cancer with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (N1) often undergo surgical excisions followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Many patients have no benefit from ACT and receive unnecessary, costly treatment often associated with short- and long-term adverse events (AEs). Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays, such as the 21-gene assay (i.e. the Oncotype DX assay), can identify patients at higher risk for recurrence who may benefit from ACT. However, the budgetary consequence of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing in the Netherlands is unknown. Our study therefore assessed it using a cost-consequence model. METHODS: A validated model was used to create the N1 model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing and MammaPrint, and subsequent ACT use with corresponding costs for chemotherapy, treatment of AEs, productivity losses, GEP testing, and treatment of recurrences, according to the Oncotype DX results. The model time horizon was 5 years. RESULTS: Costs for the total population amounted to €8.0 million (M), €16.2 M, and €9.5 M, and cost per patient amounted to €13,540, €27,455, and €16,154 for using the Oncotype DX assay, no GEP testing, and MammaPrint, respectively. Total cost savings of using the Oncotype DX assay amounted to €8.2 M versus no GEP testing and €1.5 M versus MammaPrint. Using the Oncotype DX assay would result in fewer patients receiving ACT and thus fewer AEs, sick days, and hospitalizations, leading to overall cost savings compared with no GEP testing and MammaPrint. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Oncotype DX testing in this population can prevent unnecessary overtreatment, reducing clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

Early-stage invasive breast cancer patients often undergo surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. However, many of these patients have no benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thus receive unnecessary and costly treatment often associated with side-effects. Patients who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy can be identified by analyzing the genomic profile of the patients' tumors using a molecular diagnostic test called the 21-gene assay (also known as Oncotype DX assay). However, the budgetary consequences of using Oncotype DX for this purpose in the Netherlands are currently unknown and, therefore, assessed using a health-economic model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no molecular diagnostic testing and an alternative molecular diagnostic test called MammaPrint. The three diagnostic testing strategies resulted in different costs in terms of several different costing categories and were compared with one another. The total costs were lowest for the diagnostic strategy using the Oncotype DX assay, as it would result in fewer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no molecular diagnostic testing and MammaPrint. Implementing the Oncotype DX assay as a molecular diagnostic test can identify the right patient who benefits from chemotherapy (prevent over- and undertreatment) and lead to cost-savings, reducing the clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

Assessment of clinical and economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the United States.

AIM: The objective in this study was to assess the clinical and economic implications of the inclusion of rivaroxaban as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the United States (US). METHODS: A cost-consequence model was adapted to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from multiple sources: efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban + aspirin vs. aspirin alone were abstracted from COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized clinical trials; the prevalence of chronic and symptomatic PAD and incidence rates of clinical events (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], major adverse limb events [MALE], and major bleeding), were abstracted from the analysis of claims data; healthcare costs of clinical events and wholesale acquisition costs for rivaroxaban were abstracted from the literature and Red Book, respectively (2022 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Over one year, with a 5% uptake of rivaroxaban, the model estimated rivaroxaban + aspirin to reduce 21 MACE/MALE events in the PAD patient population. The reduction in these clinical events offsets the increased risk of major bleeding (16 additional events), demonstrating a positive health benefit of the rivaroxaban addition. These benefits led to a $0.27 incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) to a US plan. The major driver of the incremental cost was the cost of rivaroxaban. In a subgroup of patients with the presence of any high-risk factor (heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, or history of vascular disease affecting two or more vascular beds), the incremental PMPM cost was $0.13. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban + aspirin was found to provide positive net clinical benefit on the annual number of MACE/MALE avoided, with a modest increase in the PMPM cost.

Health economics in nursing research: what you need to know to include economic evaluation methodology in your research.

Due to limited resources and constant, ever-changing healthcare challenges, health economics is essential to support healthcare decisions while improving health outcomes. Economic evaluation methodology facilitates informed decision-making related to the efficient allocation of resources while positively impacting clinical practice. In this paper, we provide an overview of economic evaluation methods and a real-world example applying one method of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis) in nursing research.