Adding specialized clinics for remote-dwellers with chronic kidney disease: a cost-utility analysis.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether opening a new clinic in a remote region would be a cost-effective means of improving care for remote-dwellers with CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study is a cost-utility analysis from a public payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon, using administrative data from a large cohort of adults with stage 3b-4 CKD in Alberta, Canada. The association between the distance from each simulated patient's residence and the practice location of the closest nephrologist and clinical outcomes (quality of care, hospitalization, dialysis, and death) were examined. A Markov 6-month cycle economic decision model was analyzed; estimates of the effect of a new clinic were based on the association between residence location, resource use, and outcomes. Costs are reported in 2009 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: The costs for equipping and operating a clinic for 321 remote-dwelling patients were estimated at $25,000 and $250,000/yr, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) ranged from $4000 to $8000/quality-adjusted life-year under most scenarios. However, if reducing distance to nephrologist care does not alter mortality or hospitalization among remote-dwellers, the cost-effectiveness becomes less attractive. All other one-way sensitivity analyses had negligible effects on the ICUR. CONCLUSIONS: Given the low costs of equipping and operating new clinics, and the very attractive ICUR relative to other currently funded interventions, establishing new clinics for remote-dwellers could play an important role in efficiently improving outcomes for patients with CKD. High-quality controlled studies are required to confirm this hypothesis.
Project description:Background:As the burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) continues to increase, many geographically dispersed Canadians have limited access to specialist nephrology care, which tends to be centralized in major urban areas. As a result, many rural/remote-dwellers in Canada experience poor quality of care and related adverse outcomes. It is imperative to develop alternative care delivery mechanisms to ensure optimal health outcomes for all Canadians. Objective:To investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of electronic consultation (eConsult) as a new model for interactions between specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) to improve access to care for patients with CKD. Design:This is a sequential, mixed methods study that will be conducted in 3 phases. Setting:The study will be conducted across the entire province of Alberta, supported by Alberta Kidney Care (formerly, Northern and Southern Alberta Renal Programs [NARP/SARP]). Patients:Patients suffering from CKD will be included in the study. Measurements:We will assess the barriers and enablers of implementation and adoption of an e-consultation protocol to facilitate access to care for patients with CKD in Alberta with a focus on rural/remote-dwellers with CKD. We will also evaluate the impact of the eConsult system (eg, improved access to specialist care, reduction in care gaps), assess the feasibility of province-wide implementation, and compare eConsult with practice facilitation versus eConsult alone in terms of access to specialist care, quality of care, and related outcomes. Methods:The study will be conducted in 3 phases. In phase 1, we will assess the perceptions of stakeholders (ie, PCPs, nephrologists, patients, policymakers, and other care providers) to improve CKD care delivery, quality, and outcomes in Alberta with focus groups and semistructured interviews. Phase 2 will engage specific family physicians for their input on key factors and logistical issues affecting the feasibility of implementing eConsult for the care of patients with CKD. Phase 3 will provide academic detailing including practice facilitation to clinics in Alberta to assess how eConsult with practice facilitation compares with eConsult alone in terms of access to specialist care, quality of care, and related outcomes. Results:We will assess stakeholder perceptions about potential barriers to and enablers of a new eConsult and decision support system strategy, focusing on elements that are most important for the design of a feasible and implementable intervention. We will develop, pilot test, and assess the impact of the eConsult model in improving access to specialist nephrology care and the feasibility of province-wide implementation. The final phase of the project will address key challenges for optimal care for patients with CKD living in rural, remote, and underserved areas of Alberta, particularly timely referral and disease management as well as the cost-effective benefits of eConsult. Limitations:Lack of high-speed Internet in many rural and remote areas of Alberta may lead to more time spent in completing the eConsult request online versus faxing a referral the traditional way. Allied health care staff (referral coordinators, administrative staff) require training to the eConsult system, and physicians at many remote sites do not have adequate staff to handle eConsult as an added task. Conclusions:Implementation of eConsult can favorably influence referral patterns, access to care, care quality, patient outcomes, and health care costs for people with CKD. Results of this study will inform the optimization of care for rural/remote-dwellers with CKD and will facilitate future partnerships with policymakers and provincial renal programs in Alberta to ensure optimal kidney health for all residents. Trial registration:Not required.
Project description:Potential cost and effectiveness of a nephrologist/nurse-based multifaceted intervention for stage 3 to 4 chronic kidney disease are not known. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of a chronic disease management model for chronic kidney disease.Cost and cost-effectiveness were prospectively gathered alongside a multicenter trial. The Canadian Prevention of Renal and Cardiovascular Endpoints Trial (CanPREVENT) randomized 236 patients to receive usual care (controls) and another 238 patients to multifaceted nurse/nephrologist-supported care that targeted factors associated with development of kidney and cardiovascular disease (intervention). Cost and outcomes over 2 years were examined to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Base-case analysis included disease-related costs, and sensitivity analysis included all costs.Consideration of all costs produced statistically significant differences. A lower number of days in hospital explained most of the cost difference. For both base-case and sensitivity analyses with all costs included, the intervention group required fewer resources and had higher quality of life. The direction of the results was unchanged to inclusion of various types of costs, consideration of payer or societal perspective, changes to the discount rate, and levels of GFR.The nephrologist/nurse-based multifaceted intervention represents good value for money because it reduces costs without reducing quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of school-based first permanent molar sealants programs is not yet fully conclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of school-based prevention programs for the application of sealants in molars of schoolchildren compared with non-intervention. METHODS:A cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model was carried out using probability distribution. The utility was measured in quality-adjusted tooth years (QATY). The assessment was carried out from the public payer's perspective with a six-year time horizon. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Only direct costs were evaluated, expressed in Chilean pesos (CLP) at 7th May at 2019 values (exchange rate USD?=?CLP 681.09). Univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic analysis were carried out. RESULTS:After a six-year follow up, the cost of sealing all first permanent molars was found to be higher than non-intervention, with a mean cost difference of USD 1.28 (CLP 875) per molar treated. The "seal all" strategy was more effective than non-intervention, generating 0.2 quality-adjusted tooth years more than non-intervention. The ICUR of the "seal all" strategy compared to non-intervention was USD 6.48 (CLP 4,412) per quality-adjusted tooth years. The sensitivity analysis showed that the increase in caries was the variable which most influenced the ICUR. CONCLUSIONS:A school-based sealant program is a cost-effective measure in populations with a high prevalence of caries.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPainguided and ACTonPainunguided) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version. DESIGN:This is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months after randomisation. SETTING:Participants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company. PARTICIPANTS:302 adults (≥18 years, pain for at least 6 months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPainguided, ACTonPainunguided, CG). INTERVENTIONS:ACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPainguided and ACTonPainunguided only differ in provision of human support. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Main outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR). RESULTS:At 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPainguided (44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPainunguided (28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPainguided vs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPainunguided dominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPainguided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPainunguided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society's willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPainguided) and €127,000 (ACTonPainunguided) per QALY gained. ACTonPainguided vs ACTonPainunguided revealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993. CONCLUSIONS:Depending on society's willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPainunguided (vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPainguided. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:DRKS00006183.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection requires high diagnostic rates and universal access to treatment. Around 40% of infected individuals are unaware of their infection, which indicates that effective screening strategies are needed. We analyzed the efficiency (incremental cost-utility ratio, ICUR) of 3 HCV screening strategies: a) general population of adults, b) high-risk groups, and c) population with the highest anti-HCV prevalence plus high-risk groups. METHODS:An analytical decision model, projecting progression of the disease over a lifetime, was used to establish the candidate population for HCV screening. HCV data were obtained from the literature: anti-HCV prevalence (0.56%-1.54%), viremic patients (31.5%), and percentage of undiagnosed persons among those with viremia (35%). It was assumed that most patients would be treated and have HCV therapy response (98% SVR); transition probabilities, utilities, and disease management annual costs were obtained from the literature. Efficiency over the life of patients under the National Health System perspective was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and total cost (screening, diagnosis, pharmacological and disease management). A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. RESULTS:Screening of the adult population would identify a larger number of additional chronic hepatitis C cases (N = 52,694) than screening the highest anti-HCV prevalence population plus high-risk groups (N = 42,027) or screening high-risk groups (N = 26,128). ICUR for the general population vs. high-risk groups was €8914/QALY gained per patient (€18,157 incremental cost and 2.037 QALY). ICUR for the general population vs. population with highest anti-HCV prevalence plus high-risk groups was €7,448/QALY gained per patient (€7,733 incremental cost and 1.038 QALY). These ICUR values are below the accepted efficiency threshold (€22,000-€30,000). CONCLUSION:HCV screening and treatment of the general adult population is cost-effective compared to screening of high-risk groups or the population with the highest anti-HCV prevalence plus high-risk groups.
Project description:The Ugandan Ministry of Health has endorsed voluntary medical male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy and has set ambitious goals (e.g., 4.2 million circumcisions by 2015). Innovative strategies to improve access for hard to reach, high risk, and poor populations are essential for reaching such goals. In 2009, the Makerere University Walter Reed Project began the first facility-based VMMC program in Uganda in a non-research setting. In addition, a mobile clinic began providing VMMC services to more remote, rural locations in 2011. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the average cost of performing VMMCs in the mobile clinic compared to those performed in health facilities (fixed sites). The difference between such costs is the cost of improving access to VMMC.A micro-costing approach was used to estimate costs from the service provider's perspective of a circumcision. Supply chain and higher-level program support costs are not included.The average cost (US$2012) of resources used per circumcision was $61 in the mobile program ($72 for more remote locations) compared to $34 at the fixed site. Costs for community mobilization, HIV testing, the initial medical exam, and staff for performing VMMC operations were similar for both programs. The cost of disposable surgical kits, the additional upfront cost for the mobile clinic, and additional costs for staff drive the differences in costs between the two programs. Cost estimates are relatively insensitive to patient flow over time.The MUWRP VMMC program improves access for hard to reach, relatively poor, and high-risk rural populations for a cost of $27-$38 per VMMC. Costs to patients to access services are almost certainly less in the mobile program, by reducing out-of-pocket travel expenses and lost time and associated income, all of which have been shown to be barriers for accessing treatment.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) compared with other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Chinese patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV). DESIGN:A Markov model was developed to estimate the disease progression of patients with HCV over a lifetime horizon from the healthcare system perspective. Efficacy, clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the published literature. Drug costs were from the market price survey, and health costs for Markov health states were sourced from a Chinese study. Costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the impact of input parameters on the results. INTERVENTIONS:SOF/VEL was compared with sofosbuvir+ribavirin (SR), sofosbuvir+dasabuvir (SD), daclatasvir+asunaprevir (DCV/ASV), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir (3D) and elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). RESULTS:SOF/VEL was economically dominant over SR and SD. However, 3D was economically dominant compared with SOF/VEL. Compared with DCV/ASV, SOF/VEL was cost-effective with the ICUR of US$1522 per QALY. Compared with EBR/GZR, it was not cost-effective with the ICUR of US$369 627 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of SOF/VEL to the lower value of CI resulted in dominance over EBR/GZR and 3D. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 3D was cost-effective in 100% of iterations in patients with genotype (GT) 1b and SOF/VEL was not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with other oral DAA agents, SOF/VEL treatment was not the most cost-effectiveness option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b in China. Lower the price of SOF/VEL will make it cost-effective while simplifying treatment and achieving the goal of HCV elimination.
Project description:The combination of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P+GEM) has shown superior efficacy over GEM monotherapy in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC). Independent cost-effectiveness/utility analyses of NAB-P+GEM from the payer perspective have not been conducted for the UK.A Markov model simulating the health outcomes and total costs was developed to estimate the life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for patients with MPC in a base case and in a probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analysis. Total cost included the cost of supportive care medications, administration, chemotherapy, disease monitoring, and adverse reactions; and was discounted at 3.5% per year. A full lifetime horizon and third party payer perspective was chosen.The total cost of NAB-P+GEM was £5466 higher than the cost for GEM. Respectively, LYGs were 0.97 vs 0.79 and QALYs were 0.52 vs 0.45, with ICER of £30 367/LYG and ICUR of £78 086/QALY, confirmed by PSA.The superior survival efficacy of NAB-P+GEM over GEM in the management of MPC is associated with positive cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.
Project description:Background:Multidisciplinary chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics improve patient outcomes but their optimal design is unclear. Objective:To perform a scoping review to identify and describe current practices (structure, function) associated with multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Design:Scoping review. Setting:Databases included Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. Patients:Patients followed in multidisciplinary CKD clinics globally. Measurements:Multidisciplinary CKD clinic composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and outcomes. Methods:We systematically searched the literature to identify randomized controlled trials, non-randomized interventional studies, or observational studies of multidisciplinary CKD clinics defined by an outpatient setting where two or more allied health members (with or without a nephrologist) provided longitudinal care to 50 or more adult or pediatric patients with CKD. Included studies were from 2002 to present. Searches were completed on August 10, 2018. Title, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. We abstracted data from included studies to summarize multidisciplinary CKD clinic team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes. Results:40 studies (8 randomized controlled trials and 32 non-randomized interventional studies or observational studies) involving 23?230 individuals receiving multidisciplinary CKD care in 12 countries were included. Thirty-eight focused on adults (27 with CKD, 10 incident dialysis patients, one conservative therapy) while two studies focused on adolescents or children with CKD. The multidisciplinary team included a mean of 4.6 (SD 1.5) members consisting of a nephrologist, nurse, dietician, social worker, and pharmacist in 97.4%, 86.8%, 84.2%, 57.9%, and 42.1% of studies respectively. Entry criteria to multidisciplinary CKD clinics ranged from glomerular filtration rates of 20 to 70 mL/min/1.73m2 or CKD stages 1 to 5 without any proteinuria or risk equation-based criteria. Frequency of follow-up was variable by severity of kidney disease. Team member roles and standardized operating procedures were infrequently reported. Limitations:Unstandardized definition of multidisciplinary CKD care, studies limited to CKD defined by glomerular filtration rate, and lack of representation from countries other than Canada, Taiwan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Conclusions:There is heterogeneity in multidisciplinary CKD team composition, entry criteria, follow-up, and processes with inadequate reporting of this complex intervention. Additional research is needed to determine the best model for multidisciplinary CKD clinics. Trial registration:Not applicable.
Project description:We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from a US payer perspective.A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states, progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease, and death, was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous nivolumab versus oral everolimus over a lifetime. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated based on parametric distributions fitted to PFS and overall survival (OS) data from CheckMate 025 (N = 821), a large randomized phase 3 trial of nivolumab versus everolimus for advanced RCC. Health state utility data were derived from CheckMate 025 EQ-5D data. Scenario analyses and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of uncertainty in model inputs on outcomes.Over a 25-year lifetime horizon, treatment with nivolumab resulted in a gain of 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus everolimus. Nivolumab had greater total costs versus everolimus ($US197,089 vs. $US163,902), mainly due to higher acquisition costs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), a measure of incremental costs divided by incremental QALYs, was $US51,714 per QALY gained for nivolumab versus everolimus, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $US44,576 per life-year gained for nivolumab versus everolimus. In sensitivity analyses, average body weight had the greatest impact on the ICUR for nivolumab versus everolimus (base case $US51,714; range $US8863-$US94,566). At a $US150,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, nivolumab had a 91.7% probability of being cost-effective versus everolimus.In the United States, at a WTP threshold of $US150,000 per QALY, nivolumab was found to be cost-effective. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were survival inputs for OS and the average weight of patients; the latter directly affects nivolumab drug acquisition cost.