Endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review of economic evaluations
Journal of neurosurgical sciences. 2022
INTRODUCTION There are two treatment modalities for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping. Results of economic evaluations are needed to gain insight into the relationship between clinical effectiveness and costs of these treatment modalities. This important information can inform both clinical decision-making processes and policymakers in facilitating Value-Based Healthcare. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EBSCO, and Web of Science) were searched for studies published until October 2020 that had performed economic evaluations in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients by comparing endovascular treatment with neurosurgical clipping. The quality of reporting and methodology of these evaluations was assessed using the associated instruments (i.e. CHEERS statement and CHEC-list, respectively). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of six studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies reported both effects and costs, however five did not relate effects to costs. Only one study related effects directly to costs, thus conducted a full economic evaluation. The reporting quality scored 81% and the methodological quality scored 30%. CONCLUSIONS The quality of published cost-effectiveness studies on the treatment of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is poor. Six studies reported both outcomes and costs, however only one study performed a full economic evaluation comparing endovascular treatment to neurosurgical clipping. Although the reporting quality was sufficient, the methodological quality was poor. Further research that relates health-related quality of life measures to costs of endovascular treatment and neurosurgical clipping is required-specifically focusing on both reporting and methodological quality. Different subgroup analyses and modeling could also enhance the findings.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of tranexamic acid for the treatment of traumatic brain injury, based on the results of the CRASH-3 randomised trial: a decision modelling approach
BMJ global health. 2020;5(9)
INTRODUCTION An estimated 69 million traumatic brain injuries (TBI) occur each year worldwide, with most in low-income and middle-income countries. The CRASH-3 randomised trial found that intravenous administration of tranexamic acid within 3 hours of injury reduces head injury deaths in patients sustaining a mild or moderate TBI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid treatment for TBI. METHODS A Markov decision model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with and without tranexamic acid, in addition to current practice. We modelled the decision in the UK and Pakistan from a health service perspective, over a lifetime time horizon. We used data from the CRASH-3 trial for the risk of death during the trial period (28 days) and patient quality of life, and data from the literature to estimate costs and long-term outcomes post-TBI. We present outcomes as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 2018 costs in pounds for the UK, and US dollars for Pakistan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per QALY gained were estimated, and compared with country specific cost-effective thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS Tranexamic acid was highly cost-effective for patients with mild TBI and intracranial bleeding or patients with moderate TBI, at £4288 per QALY in the UK, and US$24 per QALY in Pakistan. Tranexamic acid was 99% and 98% cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness thresholds for the UK and Pakistan, respectively, and remained cost-effective across all deterministic sensitivity analyses. Tranexamic acid was even more cost-effective with earlier treatment administration. The cost-effectiveness for those with severe TBI was uncertain. CONCLUSION Early administration of tranexamic acid is highly cost-effective for patients with mild or moderate TBI in the UK and Pakistan, relative to the cost-effectiveness thresholds used. The estimated ICERs suggest treatment is likely to be cost-effective across all income settings globally.
Use of tranexamic acid in trauma patients: an analysis of cost effectiveness for use in Brazil
ABCD, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva. 2016;29((4)):282-286.
Introduction:: Use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in trauma has been the subject of growing interest by researchers and health professionals. However, there are still several open questions regarding its use. In some aspects medical literature is controversial. The points of disagreement among experts include questions such as: Which patients should receive TXA in trauma? Should treatment be performed in the pre-hospital environment? Is there any need for laboratory parameters before starting TXA treatment? What is the drug safety profile? The main issue on which there is still no basis in literature is: What is the indication for treatment within massive transfusion protocols? Objective:: Answer the questions proposed based on critical evaluation of the evidence gathered so far and carry out a study of cost-effectiveness of TXA use in trauma adapted to the Brazilian reality. Methods:: A literature review was performed through searching Pubmed.com, Embase and Cab Abstract by headings "tranexamic AND trauma", in all languages, yielding 426 articles. Manuscripts reporting on TXA utilization for elective procedures were excluded, remaining 79 articles. Fifty-five articles were selected, and critically evaluated in order to answer study questions. The evaluation of cost effectiveness was performed using CRASH-2 trial data and Brazilian official population data. Results:: TXA is effective and efficient, and should be administered to a wide range of patients, including those with indication evaluated in research protocols and current indication criteria for TXA should be expanded. As for the cost-effectiveness, the TXA proved to be cost-effective with an average cost of R$ 61.35 (currently US$16) per year of life saved. Conclusion:: The use of TXA in trauma setting seems to be effective, efficient and cost-effective in the various groups of polytrauma patients. Its use in massive transfusion protocols should be the subject of further investigations. Introducao:: O uso do acido tranexamico (TXA) no trauma tem sido alvo de interesse crescente por parte de pesquisadores e profissionais de saude. No entanto, seus beneficios ainda nao foram completamente definidos. Os pontos de divergencia entre especialistas incluem questoes como: quais pacientes devem receber TXA no trauma? O tratamento deve ser realizado em ambiente pre-hospitalar? Ha necessidade de exames laboratoriais para indicar o tratamento? Qual o perfil de seguranca da droga? A principal questao para a qual ainda nao existe qualquer embasamento na literatura e: qual a indicacao do tratamento dentro de protocolos de transfusao macica? Objetivo:: Responder as questoes propostas, com base em avaliacao critica da evidencia reunida ate o momento e realizar estudo de custo-efetividade do uso do TXA no trauma adaptado a realidade brasileira. Metodos:: Foi realizada revisao da literatura atraves de estrategia de busca: PubMed.com, Embase e no Cab Abstract pelos descritores "tranexamic AND trauma", em todos idiomas, resultando em 426 artigos. Foram excluidos aqueles relativos as operacoes eletivas, restando 79 artigos. Cinquenta e cinco foram selecionados e avaliados criticamente com vistas a responder as questoes em estudo. A avaliacao de custo-efetividade foi realizada utilizando dados do estudo CRASH-2 e populacionais oficiais brasileiros. Resultados:: Atraves da analise da evidencia disponivel chegou-se a conclusao de que o acido tranexamico e tratamento eficaz e efetivo, devendo ser administrado a ampla gama de pacientes, incluindo todos aqueles com indicacao ja avaliada nos protocolos de pesquisa publicados e provavelmente devam-se expandir os criterios de indicacao. Quanto a avaliacao de custo-efetividade, o TXA mostrou-se bastante custo-eficaz com gasto medio de R$ 61,35 por ano de vida salvo. Conclusao:: O uso do acido tranexamico no trauma parece ser eficaz, efetivo e custo-eficaz nos diversos grupos de pacientes politraumatizados. Seu uso em protocolos de transfusao macica ainda deve ser objeto de futuras investigacoes.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of administering tranexamic acid to bleeding trauma patients using evidence from the CRASH-2 trial
PLoS ONE. 2011;6((5):):e18987.
OBJECTIVE To assess the cost effectiveness of giving tranexamic acid (TXA) to bleeding trauma patients in low, middle and high income settings. METHODS The CRASH-2 trial showed that TXA administration reduces the risk of death in bleeding trauma patients with a small but statistically significant increase in non-intensive care stay. A Markov model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of TXA in Tanzania, India and the United Kingdom (UK). The health outcome was the number of life years gained (LYs). Two costs were considered: the cost of administering TXA and the cost of additional days in hospital. Cost data were obtained from hospitals, World Health Organization (WHO) database and UK reference costs. Cost-effectiveness was measured in international dollars ($) per LY. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results to model assumptions. FINDINGS Administering TXA to bleeding trauma patients within three hours of injury saved an estimated 372, 315 and 755 LYs per 1,000 trauma patients in Tanzania, India and the UK respectively. The cost of giving TXA to 1,000 patients was $17,483 in Tanzania, $19,550 in India and $30,830 in the UK. The incremental cost of giving TXA versus not giving TXA was $18,025 in Tanzania, $20,670 in India and $48,002 in the UK. The estimated incremental cost per LY gained of administering TXA is $48, $66 and $64 in Tanzania, India and the UK respectively. CONCLUSION Early administration of TXA to bleeding trauma patients is likely to be highly cost effective in low, middle and high income settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION This paper uses data collected by the CRASH 2 trial: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN86750102, Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00375258 and South African Clinical Trial Register DOH-27-0607-1919.
Cost effectiveness of respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis: a critical and systematic review
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of infant hospitalization in the US. The economic burden of severe disease is substantial, including hospitalization costs and out-of-pocket expenses. RSV prophylaxis with either RSV immune globulin intravenous (RSV-IGIV) or palivizumab has been shown to be effective in reducing RSV-related hospitalizations. Motavizumab, a new enhanced-potency humanized RSV monoclonal antibody, is presently in clinical trials. RSV-IGIV and palivizumab are associated with high acquisition costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses are therefore of great importance in helping to determine who should receive RSV prophylaxis. Six studies have analysed the cost effectiveness of RSV-IGIV, 14 have analysed the cost effectiveness of palivizumab and five have analysed the cost effectiveness of both agents, two of which directly compared palivizumab with RSV-IGIV. The cost effectiveness of motavizumab has not been studied. Significant variation exists in the modelling used in these analyses. Many studies have examined short-term benefits such as reducing hospitalizations and associated costs, while fewer studies have examined long-term benefits such as QALYs or life-years gained. The payer and society have been the most common perspectives used. The endpoints examined varied and generally did not account for the potential impact of RSV prophylaxis on RSV-related complications such as asthma. While some studies have reported acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios for RSV prophylaxis, the majority failed to show cost savings or cost-effectiveness ratios below commonly accepted thresholds for either RSV-IGIV or palivizumab. Cost effectiveness of RSV prophylaxis tended to be more favourable in populations with specific risk factors, including premature infants < or =32 weeks' gestational age, and infants or children aged < 2 years with chronic lung disease or congenital heart disease. Comparing the results of economic analyses of the two agents suggests palivizumab may be the more cost-effective option in the population for which RSV prophylaxis is recommended. Over time, the acquisition cost of RSV prophylaxis agents, a major cost driver, may decrease, and more acceptable outcomes of economic analyses may result. Albeit important, the results of economic analyses are not the only tool that decision makers rely on, as population-specific risk factors, and efficacy and safety data must be considered when developing treatment guidelines and making clinical decisions.
Cost-effectiveness of immunoglobulin M-enriched immunoglobulin (Pentaglobin) in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock
Journal of Critical Care. 2005;20((3):):239-49.
PURPOSE To measure the cost-effectiveness of a specific polyclonal intravenous immune globulin preparation (Pentaglobin) in adult patients treated for severe sepsis and septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS Effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials (N=435) were used to populate a decision model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Pentaglobin and its comparator standard therapy from the hospital perspective in Germany. Primary outcome: all-cause morality; secondary outcome: intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Benefit was expressed as lives saved (LS). Published cost data were applied to assess differences in ICU treatment costs. Cost- effectiveness was calculated as incremental cost per LS. RESULTS Pentaglobin reduced the risk of mortality (P<.001) but had no effect on ICU length of stay. A baseline risk of mortality of 0.4434 (risk ratio=0.5652; absolute risk reduction=0.1928; number-needed-to-treat =5.19) increased ICU treatment costs with Pentaglobin by 2,037 (22,711 vs 24,747) with a cost per LS of 10,565. Sensitivity analyses on baseline mortality risk (95% confidence interval 0.3293-0.5162) and risk ratio (95% confidence interval 0.4306-0.7420) yielded a cost per LS range of 5,715 to 28,443 with a 56.3% probability of cost- effectiveness of 12,000 or less. CONCLUSIONS Pentaglobin is a promising adjuvant therapy both clinically and economically for treatment of adults with severe sepsis and septic shock.