Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

ABSTRACT: Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (-£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -£15.60 to -£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (-0.0052; 95% CI -0.0057 to -0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

SUBMITTER: Ronaldson SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8666991 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

Ronaldson Sarah J SJ Keding Ada A Tharmanathan Puvan P Arundel Catherine C Kingsbury Sarah R SR Conaghan Philip G PG Torgerson David J DJ

F1000Research 20210817

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service ...[more]

PMID: 34950454

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEnterovirus 71 (EV71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CA16) were responsible for 43.3% (235 123/543 243) and 24.8% (134 607/543 243) of all laboratory-confirmed hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) cases during 2010-2015 in China. Three monovalent EV71 vaccines have been licensed in China while bivalent EV71/CA16 vaccines are under development. A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of bivalent EV71/CA16 versus monovalent EV71 vaccination would be useful for informing the additional value of bivalent HFMD vaccines in China.MethodsWe used a static model parameterized with the national HFMD surveillance data during 2010-2013, virological HFMD surveillance records from all 31 provinces in mainland China during 2010-2013 and caregiver survey data of costs and health quality of life during 2012-2013. We estimated the threshold vaccine cost (TVC), defined as the maximum additional cost that could be paid for a cost-effective bivalent EV71/CA16 vaccine over a monovalent EV71 vaccine, as the outcome. The base case analysis was performed from a societal perspective. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying assumptions governing HFMD risk, costs, discounting and vaccine efficacy.ResultsIn the base case, choosing the bivalent EV71/CA16 over monovalent EV71 vaccination would be cost-effective only if the additional cost of the bivalent EV71/CA16 compared with the monovalent EV71 vaccine is less than €4.7 (95% CI 4.2-5.2). Compared with the TVC in the base case, TVC increased by up to €8.9 if all the test-negative cases were CA16-HFMD; decreased by €1.1 with an annual discount rate of 6% and exclusion of the productivity loss; and increased by €0.14 and €0.3 with every 1% increase in bivalent vaccine efficacy against CA16-HFMD and differential vaccine efficacy against EV71-HFMD, respectively.ConclusionsBivalent EV71/CA16 vaccines can be cost-effective compared with monovalent EV71 vaccines, if suitably priced. Our study provides further evidence for determining the optimal use of HFMD vaccines in routine paediatric vaccination programme in China.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double-layer compared with single-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) from a societal and healthcare perspective.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.Setting32 hospitals in the Netherlands, 2016-2018.Participants2292 women ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned (1:1). Exclusion criteria were: inability for counselling, previous uterine surgery, known menstrual disorder, placenta increta or percreta, pregnant with three or more fetuses. 1144 women were assigned to single-layer and 1148 to double-layer closure. We included 1620 women with a menstrual cycle in the main analysis.InterventionsSingle-layer unlocked uterine closure and double-layer unlocked uterine closure with the second layer imbricating the first.Main outcome measuresSpotting days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs at 9 months of follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation.ResultsNo significant differences were found between single-layer versus double-layer closure in mean spotting days (1.44 and 1.39 days; mean difference (md) -0.056, 95% CI -0.374 to 0.263), QALYs (0.663 and 0.658; md -0.005, 95% CI -0.015 to 0.005), total healthcare costs (€744 and €727; md €-17, 95% CI -273 to 143), and total societal costs (€5689 and €5927; md €238, 95% CI -624 to 1108). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of €0, €10 000 and €20 000/QALY gained was 0.30, 0.27 and 0.25, respectively, (societal perspective), and 0.55, 0.41 and 0.32, respectively, (healthcare perspective).ConclusionDouble-layer uterine closure is not cost-effective compared with single-layer uterine closure from both perspectives. If this is confirmed by our long-term reproductive follow-up, we suggest to adjust uterine closure technique guidelines.Trial registration numberNTR5480/NL5380.

Project description:BackgroundAcromegaly, an orphan disease usually caused by a benign pituitary tumour, is characterised by hyper-secretion of growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1). It is associated with reduced life expectancy, cardiovascular problems, a variety of insidiously progressing detrimental symptoms and metabolic malfunction. Treatments include surgery, radiotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Pegvisomant (PEG) is a genetically engineered GH analogue licensed as a third or fourth line option when other treatments have failed to normalise IGF-1 levels.MethodsEvidence about effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PEG was systematically reviewed. Data were extracted from published studies and used for a narrative synthesis of evidence. A decision analytical economic model was identified and modified to assess the cost-effectiveness of PEG.ResultsOne RCT and 17 non-randomised studies were reviewed for effectiveness. PEG substantially reduced and rapidly normalised IGF-1 levels in the majority of patients, approximately doubled GH levels, and improved some of the signs and symptoms of the disease. Tumour size was unaffected at least in the short term. PEG had a generally safe adverse event profile but a few patients were withdrawn from treatment because of raised liver enzymes. An economic model was identified and adapted to estimate the lower limit for the cost-effectiveness of PEG treatment versus standard care. Over a 20 year time horizon the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound81,000/QALY and pound212,000/LYG. To reduce this to pound30K/QALY would require a reduction in drug cost by about one third.ConclusionPEG is highly effective for improving patients' IGF-1 level. Signs and symptoms of disease improve but evidence is lacking about long term effects on improved signs and symptoms of disease, quality of life, patient compliance and safety. Economic evaluation indicated that if current standards (UK) for determining cost-effectiveness of therapies were to be applied to PEG it would be considered not to represent good value for money.

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetes is the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years in Mexico, and cost-effective care models are needed to address the epidemic. We sought to evaluate the cost and cost-effectiveness of a novel community-based model of diabetes care in rural Mexico, compared with usual care.DesignWe performed time-driven activity-based costing to estimate annualised costs associated with typical diabetes care in Chiapas, Mexico, as well as a novel diabetes care model known as Compañeros En Salud Programa de Enfermedades Crónicas (CESPEC). We conducted Markov chain analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with usual care from a societal perspective. We used patient outcomes from CESPEC in 2016, as well as secondary data from existing literature.SettingRural primary care clinics in Chiapas, Mexico.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes.InterventionsCESPEC is a novel, comprehensive, diabetes care model that integrates community health workers, provider education, supply chain management and active case finding.Outcome measureThe primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of CESPEC compared with care as usual, per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, expressed in 2016 US dollars.ResultsThe economic cost of the CESPEC diabetes model was US$144 per patient per year, compared with US$125 for diabetes care as usual. However, CESPEC care was associated with 0.13 additional years of health-adjusted life expectancy compared with usual care and 0.02 additional years in the first 5 years of treatment. This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$2981 per QALY gained over a patient's lifetime and an ICER of US$10 444 over the first 5 years. Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsCESPEC is a cost-effective, community-based model of diabetes care for patients in rural Mexico. Given the high prevalence and significant morbidity associated with diabetes in Mexico and other countries in Central America, this model should be considered for broader scale up and evaluation.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine <i>versus</i> placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets