ObjectivesTo assess the clinical and the economic impacts of intraprocedural use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in patients undergoing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for small (<2.5 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas.MethodsOne hundred and forty-eight hepatocellular carcinomas in 93 patients were treated by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and immediate assessment by intraprocedural CEUS. Clinical impact, cost effectiveness, and budget, organisational and equity impacts were evaluated and compared with standard treatment without intraprocedural CEUS using the health technology assessment approach.ResultsIntraprocedural CEUS detected incomplete ablation in 34/93 (36.5 %) patients, who underwent additional treatment during the same session. At 24-h, complete ablation was found in 88/93 (94.6 %) patients. Thus, a second session of treatment was spared in 29/93 (31.1 %) patients. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an advantage for the use of intraprocedural CEUS in comparison with standard treatment (4,639 vs 6,592) with a 21.9 % reduction of the costs to treat the whole sample. Cost per patient for complete treatment was € 4,609 versus € 5,872 respectively. The introduction of intraprocedural CEUS resulted in a low organisational impact, and in a positive impact on equityConclusionsIntraprocedural use of CEUS has a relevant clinical impact, reducing the number of re-treatments and the related costs per patient.Teaching Points• CEUS allows to immediately asses the result of ablation.• Intraprocedural CEUS decreases the number of second ablative sessions.• Intraprocedural CEUS may reduce cost per patient for complete treatment.• Use of intraprocedural CEUS may reduce hospital budget.• Its introduction has low organisational impact, and relevant impact on equity.
Following preventive chemotherapy covering the entire population in the two endemic regions in Cambodia, the prevalence of schistosomiasis dropped from 77% in 1995 to 0.5% in 2003. The study presented here reports on the running cost of the control programme, and evaluates its cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit. Financial costs were assessed using data taken from the annual reports of the National Center for Malaria Control, the Cambodian institution responsible for the control activities. Other data were collected from interviews with provincial and district staff. The analysis was conducted from the point of views of the Cambodian Ministry of Health and that of the society, and the comparison was undertaken using the "do-nothing" option. The cost to treat an individual for the 9 years period of the implementation phase was 9.22 USD (1.02 per year), the cost for each severe infection avoided was 61.50 USD and 6531 USD for each death avoided. The drug cost corresponds on average to 17.34% of the programme's implementation cost. The cost of bringing one severely infected individual of productive age to complete productivity, was estimated at 114 USD and for 1 USD invested in the programme the return in increased productivity, for the economic system, was estimated to be 3.85 USD. The control programme demonstrated significant economical advantages. However, its costs are too high to be entirely supported by the Cambodian Ministry of Health.
The mean total cost per year to provide health care to HIV-positive patients was stable during the period 2004-2007, with an increase of HAART percentage impact on the total cost. Several clinical characteristics of HIV-infected patients were significantly associated with cost variation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficiency of resources allocation and sustainability of the use of netupitant+palonosetron (NEPA) for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis assuming the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A published Markov model was adapted to assess the incremental cost-utility ratio of NEPA compared with aprepitant (APR) + palonosetron (PALO), fosaprepitant (fAPR) + PALO, APR + ondansetron (ONDA), fAPR + ONDA in patients receiving a highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with APR + PALO and fAPR + PALO in patients receiving a moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC).SettingOncology hospital department in Italy.MethodsA Markov model was used to determine the impact of NEPA on the budget of the Italian NHS on a 5-day time horizon, corresponding to the acute and delayed CINV prophylaxis phases. Direct medical costs considered were related to antiemetic drugs, adverse events management, CINV episodes management. Clinical and quality of life data referred to previously published works. The budget impact analysis considered the aforementioned therapies plus PALO alone (for HEC and MEC) on a 5-year time horizon, comparing two scenarios: one considering the use of NEPA and one not considering its use.Primary and secondary outcome measuresIncremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and differential economic impact for the Italian NHS between the two scenarios considered.ResultsNEPA is more effective and less expensive (dominant) compared with APR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), fAPR + PALO (for HEC and MEC), APR + ONDA (for HEC), fAPR + ONDA (for HEC). The use of NEPA would lead to a 5-year cost decrease of €63.7 million (€42.7 million for HEC and €20.9 million for MEC).ConclusionsNEPA allows an efficient allocation of resources for the Italian NHS and it is sustainable, leading to a cost decrease compared with a scenario which does not consider its use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.