A cost-effectiveness modeling study of treatment interventions for stage I to III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Daroudi, Rajabali; Nahvijou, Azin; Arab, Mohammad; Faramarzi, Ahmad; Kalaghchi, Bita; Sari, Ali Akbari; Javan‐Noughabi, Javad

doi:10.1186/s12962-022-00352-5

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The poorer survival seen in advanced disease is a major contributor to cost per QALY 10 . Current evidence suggests that only 15–20% of patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and surgery for OC show significant pathological tumour regression 11 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic cost-utility analysis of stage-directed oesophageal cancer treatment

Herbert,

Robinson,

Powell

et al. 2024

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic cost-utility analysis of stage-directed oesophageal cancer treatment

Herbert,

Robinson,

Powell

et al. 2024

BJS Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the Tornado diagram was drawn to determine the sensitive parameters. Finally, a one-way sensitivity analysis was performed in terms of willingness to pay $7402 (the average value of willingness to pay per QALY gained in Iran [ 21 ]), and the robustness of the results was checked. The data obtained were analyzed using Treeage software.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 in Iran

Rahmanzadeh,

Malekpour,

Faramarzi

et al. 2023

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Since 2020, COVID-19 has become a global public health issue and has caused problems worldwide. This infection can lead to a fever and respiratory problems. Asymptomatic carriers of the virus are a significant part of the spread of the disease, so early screening and diagnosis of suspected cases of COVID-19 are essential. Generally, standard diagnostic methods include lung imaging (CT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and corona antibody (IgM&IgG) testing. However, the costs of the above tests for the healthcare system cannot be ignored, and evaluating the incremental costs against the additional benefit is necessary. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic methods for COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods In this research, an economic evaluation analysis was conducted to reveal the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 from the service provider’s perspective. Basic information about the costs of CT, serology (IgG&IgM), and molecular (PCR) tests were collected from the Ministry of Health of Iran. The effectiveness data were calculated according to the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic tests for COVID-19. In this study, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 was estimated, and the most cost-effective diagnostic strategy was determined. In calculating ICER and analyzing the sensitivity of the results, Treeage software was used. Results According to the calculated incremental effectiveness cost ratio for scenarios with 5, 10, and 50% prevalence of COVID-19 and according to the threshold defined by the World Health Organization, in the study, PCR, PCR, and IgG&IgM strategies are the most cost-effective diagnostic methods of the corona. Also, the results were not sensitive to the desired parameters based on the results of one-way sensitivity analysis. Conclusion Nowadays there are various tests with different levels of accuracy in the diagnosis of COVID-19. In general, PCR tests are more cost-effective for low prevalence of Covid-19, while IgM&IgG tests are more cost-effective for high estimated prevalence. The results of this research can help policymakers and health system managers to validate the most accurate diagnostic method for COVID-19, considering the prevalence of the disease.

show abstract

“…The ICER represents the cost of one added QALY. For this study, a willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) threshold ICER of $100,000 per QALY was adopted, which is between one and two times the gross domestic product per capita, as recommended by the World Health Organization for cost‐effectiveness studies of health‐related interventions in developed countries [14].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early analysis shows that endoscopic flexor hallucis longus transfer has a promising cost-effectiveness profile in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures

Diniz

Ferreira

Figueiredo³

et al. 2022

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Current options for treating an Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) include conservative and surgical approaches. Endoscopic lexor hallucis longus (FHL) transfer has been recently proposed to treat acute ruptures, but its cost-efectiveness potential remains to be evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this study was to perform an early cost-efectiveness analysis of endoscopic FHL transfer for acute ATRs, comparing the costs and beneits of current treatments from a societal perspective. Methods A conceptual model was created, with a decision tree, to outline the main health events during the treatment of an acute ATR. The model was parameterized using secondary data. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to gather information on the outcomes of current treatments. Data related to outcomes of endoscopic FHL transfers in acute Achilles ruptures was obtained from a single prospective study. Analysis was limited to the two irst years. The incremental cost-efectiveness ratio was the main outcome used to determine the preferred strategy. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine whether changes in input parameters would cause signiicant deviation from the reference case results. Speciically, a probability sensitivity analysis was conducted using Monte Carlo simulations, and a one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted by sequentially varying each model parameter within a given range. Results For the reference case, incremental cost-efectiveness ratios exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold for all the surgical approaches. Overall, primary treatment was the main cost driver. Conservative treatment showed the highest direct costs related to the treatment of complications. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, open surgery was cost-efective in 50.9%, minimally invasive surgery in 55.8%, and endoscopic FHL transfer in 72% of the iterations. The model was most sensitive to parameters related to treatment utilities, followed by the costs of primary treatments. Conclusion Surgical treatments have a moderate likelihood of being cost-efective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, with endoscopic FHL transfer showing the highest likelihood. Following injury, interventions to improve healthrelated quality of life may be better suited for improved cost-efectiveness. Level of evidence Level III.

show abstract

A cost-effectiveness modeling study of treatment interventions for stage I to III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Cited by 4 publications

References 66 publications

Economic cost-utility analysis of stage-directed oesophageal cancer treatment

Economic cost-utility analysis of stage-directed oesophageal cancer treatment

Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for COVID-19 in Iran

Early analysis shows that endoscopic flexor hallucis longus transfer has a promising cost-effectiveness profile in the treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About