An economic evaluation examining the cost-effectiveness of continuous diffusion of oxygen therapy for individuals with diabetic foot ulcers.

Continuous delivery of oxygen therapy has been observed to improve healing for individuals with an advanced diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). However, this intervention requires the purchasing of an oxygen delivery device and moist dressings. It is unknown whether this upfront financial investment represents good value for money. Thus the aim of this project is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating advanced DFU using continuous delivery of oxygen compared with negative pressure wound therapy from the perspective of the public health care payer in Ontario, Canada. A microsimulation model was constructed with inputs from peer-reviewed journal publications and publicly available reports. The 5-year costs and quality-adjusted life-years were compared between treatment and comparator. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of results. The model predicted that continuous delivery of oxygen would cost $4800 less compared with negative pressure wound therapy and increased quality-adjusted life years by 0.025. Lower cost and improved outcomes were observed in most scenario analyses. The results of this economic evaluation suggest that CDO therapy may reduce health care economic burden with a modest increase in quality of life outcomes. Health care decision-makers should consider the inclusion of CDO for the treatment of DFU.

Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury and Income and Employment Status.

Importance: Spinal cord injury (SCI) causes drastic changes to an individual's physical health that may be associated with the ability to work. Objective: To estimate the association of SCI with individual earnings and employment status using national administrative health databases linked to income tax data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective, national, population-based cohort study of adults who were hospitalized with cervical SCI in Canada between January 2005 and December 2017. All acute care hospitalizations for SCI of adults ages 18 to 64 years were included. A comparison group was constructed by sampling from individuals in the injured cohort. Fiscal information from their preinjury years was used for comparison. The injured cohort was matched with the comparison group based on age, sex, marital status, province of residence, self-employment status, earnings, and employment status in the year prior to injury. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to January 2023. Main outcomes and Measures: The first outcome was the change in individual annual earnings up to 5 years after injury. The change in mean yearly earnings was assessed using a linear mixed-effects differences-in-differences regression. Income values are reported in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD $1.00 = US $0.73). The second outcome was the change in employment status up to 5 years after injury. A multivariable probit regression model was used to compare proportions of individuals employed among those who had experienced SCI and the paired comparison group of participants. Results: A total of 1630 patients with SCI (mean [SD] age, 47 [13] years; 1304 male [80.0%]) were matched to patients in a preinjury comparison group (resampled from the same 1630 patients in the SCI group). The mean (SD) of preinjury wage earnings was CAD $46 000 ($48 252). The annual decline in individual earnings was CAD $20 275 (95% CI, -$24 455 to -$16 095) in the first year after injury and CAD $20 348 (95% CI, -$24 710 to -$15 985) in the fifth year after injury. At 5 years after injury, 52% of individuals who had an injury were working compared with 79% individuals in the preinjury comparison group. SCI survivors had a decrease in employment of 17.1 percentage points (95% CI, 14.5 to 19.7 percentage points) in the first year after injury and 17.8 percentage points (14.5 to 21.1 percentage points) in the fifth year after injury. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, SCI was associated with a decline in earnings and employment up to 5 years after injury for adults aged 18 to 64 years in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of a gene sequencing test for Alzheimer's disease in Ontario.

Alzheimer's f disease (AD) affects approximately 250,000 Ontarians, a number that is expected to double by 2040. The Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative has developed an in-province genetic test (ONDRISeq), which currently runs in Ontario in an experimental capacity. The aim of this study is to estimate the costs and health outcomes associated with ONDRISeq to diagnose AD relative to out-of-country (OOC) testing (status quo). A cost-utility analysis was developed for a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-olds at risk of AD in Ontario over a 25-year time horizon. Costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were assessed from a healthcare payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness was assessed with a $50,000 cost-effectiveness threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate parameter uncertainty. ONDRISeq saved $54 per patient relative to OOC testing and led to a small QALY gain in the base case (0.0014 per patient). Results were most sensitive to testing costs, uptake rates, and treatment efficacy. ONDRISeq represented better value for money relative to OOC testing throughout 75% of 10,000 probabilistic iterations. Using ONDRISeq is expected to provide health system cost savings. Switching to ONDRISeq for AD genetic testing in Ontario would be dependent on the ability to accommodate the expected testing volumes.

An Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Tool for Older Adults With Complex Chronic Conditions: Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: eHealth technologies for self-management can improve quality of life, but little is known about whether the benefits gained outweigh their costs. The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) mobile app and portal system supports patients with multiple chronic conditions to collaborate with primary health care providers to set and monitor health-related goals. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost of ePRO and the cost utility of the ePRO intervention compared with usual care provided to patients with multiple chronic conditions and complex needs living in the community, from the perspective of the publicly funded health care payer in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We developed a decision tree model to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for the ePRO tool versus usual care over a time horizon of 15 months. Resource utilization and effectiveness of the ePRO tool were drawn from a randomized clinical trial with 6 family health teams involving 45 participants. Unit costs associated with health care utilization (adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollars) were drawn from literature and publicly available sources. A series of sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: The total cost of the ePRO tool was CAD $79,467 (~US $ 63,581; CAD $1733 [~US $1386] per person). Compared with standard care, the ePRO intervention was associated with higher costs (CAD $1710 [~US $1368]) and fewer QALYs (-0.03). The findings were consistent with the clinical evidence, suggesting no statistical difference in health-related quality of life between ePRO and usual care groups. However, the tool would be considered a cost-effective option if it could improve by at least 0.03 QALYs. The probability that the ePRO is cost-effective was 17.3% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD $50,000 (~US $40,000)/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The ePRO tool is not a cost-effective technology at the commonly used WTP value of CAD $50,000 (~US $40,000)/QALY, but long-term and the societal impacts of ePRO were not included in this analysis. Further research is needed to better understand its impact on long-term outcomes and in real-world settings. The present findings add to the growing evidence about eHealth interventions' capacity to respond to complex aging populations within finite-resourced health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02917954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02917954.