UNASSIGNED: Patients with early-stage hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) negative invasive breast cancer with 1-3 positive lymph nodes (N1) often undergo surgical excisions followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Many patients have no benefit from ACT and receive unnecessary, costly treatment often associated with short- and long-term adverse events (AEs). Gene expression profiling (GEP) assays, such as the 21-gene assay (i.e. the Oncotype DX assay), can identify patients at higher risk for recurrence who may benefit from ACT. However, the budgetary consequence of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing in the Netherlands is unknown. Our study therefore assessed it using a cost-consequence model.
UNASSIGNED: A validated model was used to create the N1 model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no GEP testing and MammaPrint, and subsequent ACT use with corresponding costs for chemotherapy, treatment of AEs, productivity losses, GEP testing, and treatment of recurrences, according to the Oncotype DX results. The model time horizon was 5 years.
UNASSIGNED: Costs for the total population amounted to €8.0 million (M), €16.2 M, and €9.5 M, and cost per patient amounted to €13,540, €27,455, and €16,154 for using the Oncotype DX assay, no GEP testing, and MammaPrint, respectively. Total cost savings of using the Oncotype DX assay amounted to €8.2 M versus no GEP testing and €1.5 M versus MammaPrint. Using the Oncotype DX assay would result in fewer patients receiving ACT and thus fewer AEs, sick days, and hospitalizations, leading to overall cost savings compared with no GEP testing and MammaPrint.
UNASSIGNED: Implementing Oncotype DX testing in this population can prevent unnecessary overtreatment, reducing clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.
Early-stage invasive breast cancer patients often undergo surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. However, many of these patients have no benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thus receive unnecessary and costly treatment often associated with side-effects. Patients who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy can be identified by analyzing the genomic profile of the patients’ tumors using a molecular diagnostic test called the 21-gene assay (also known as Oncotype DX assay). However, the budgetary consequences of using Oncotype DX for this purpose in the Netherlands are currently unknown and, therefore, assessed using a health-economic model. The model compared the costs and consequences of using the Oncotype DX assay versus no molecular diagnostic testing and an alternative molecular diagnostic test called MammaPrint. The three diagnostic testing strategies resulted in different costs in terms of several different costing categories and were compared with one another. The total costs were lowest for the diagnostic strategy using the Oncotype DX assay, as it would result in fewer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy compared with no molecular diagnostic testing and MammaPrint. Implementing the Oncotype DX assay as a molecular diagnostic test can identify the right patient who benefits from chemotherapy (prevent over- and undertreatment) and lead to cost-savings, reducing the clinical and economic burden on the patient and Dutch healthcare system.

UNASSIGNED: To date, economic analyses of tissue-based next generation sequencing genomic profiling (NGS) for advanced solid tumors have typically required models with assumptions, with little real-world evidence on overall survival (OS), clinical trial enrollment or end-of-life quality of care.
UNASSIGNED: Cost consequence analysis of NGS testing (555 or 161-gene panels) for advanced solid tumors through the OCTANE clinical trial (NCT02906943). This is a longitudinal, propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada using linked administrative data. Patients enrolled in OCTANE at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from August 2016 until March 2019 were matched with contemporary patients without large gene panel testing from across Ontario not enrolled in OCTANE. Patients were matched according to 19 patient, disease and treatment variables. Full 2-year follow-up data was available. Sensitivity analyses considered alternative matched cohorts. Main Outcomes were mean per capita costs (2019 Canadian dollars) from a public payer\'s perspective, OS, clinical trial enrollment and end-of-life quality metrics.
UNASSIGNED: There were 782 OCTANE patients with 782 matched controls. Variables were balanced after matching (standardized difference <0.10). There were higher mean health-care costs with OCTANE ($79,702 vs. $59,550), mainly due to outpatient and specialist visits. Publicly funded drug costs were less with OCTANE ($20,015 vs. $24,465). OCTANE enrollment was not associated with improved OS (restricted mean survival time [standard error]: 1.50 (±0.03) vs. 1.44 (±0.03) years, log-rank p = 0.153), varying by tumor type. In five tumor types with ≥35 OCTANE patients, OS was similar in three (breast, colon, uterus, all p > 0.40), and greater in two (ovary, biliary, both p < 0.05). OCTANE was associated with greater clinical trial enrollment (25.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001) and better end-of-life quality due to less death in hospital (10.2% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.003). Results were robust in sensitivity analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We found an increase in healthcare costs associated with multi-gene panel testing for advanced cancer treatment. The impact on OS was not significant, but varied across tumor types. OCTANE was associated with greater trial enrollment, lower publicly funded drug costs and fewer in-hospital deaths suggesting important considerations in determining the value of NGS panel testing for advanced cancers.
UNASSIGNED: T.P H holds a research grant provided by the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (#IA-035 and P.HSR.158) and through funding of the Canadian Network for Learning Healthcare Systems and Cost-Effective \'Omics Innovation (CLEO) via Genome Canada (G05CHS).

OBJECTIVE: The structured, clinically supervised withdrawal of medicines, known as deprescribing, is one strategy to address inappropriate polypharmacy. This study aimed to evaluate the costs and consequences of deprescribing in frail older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Australia.
METHODS: A within-trial cost-consequence analysis of a deprescribing intervention-Opti-Med. The Opti-Med double-blind randomized controlled trial of deprescribing included 3 groups: blinded control, blinded intervention, and an open intervention group.
METHODS: Seventeen RACFs in Western Australia and New South Wales. Participants were 303 older people living in participating RACFs from March 2014 to February 2019.
METHODS: Analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective. Health economic outcomes assessed include cost saved from deprescribed medicines and the incremental quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were presented in 2022 Australian dollars.
RESULTS: The total cost of the Opti-Med intervention was $239.13 per participant. The costs saved through deprescribed medicines over 12 months after adjusting for mortality within the trial period was $328.90 per participant in the blinded intervention group and $164.00 per participant in the open intervention group. On average, the cost of the intervention was more than offset by the cost saved from deprescribed medicines. Extrapolating these findings to the Australian population suggests a potential net cost saving of about $1 to $16 million per annum for the health system nationally. The incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very similar across the 3 groups within the trial period.
CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing for frail older people living in RACFs can be a cost-saving intervention without reducing the quality of life. Systemwide implementation of deprescribing across RACFs in Australia has the potential to improve health care delivery through the cost savings, which could be reapplied to further optimize care within RACFs.

Aim: To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Patients & methods: We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. Results: STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%) and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.

Due to limited resources and constant, ever-changing healthcare challenges, health economics is essential to support healthcare decisions while improving health outcomes. Economic evaluation methodology facilitates informed decision-making related to the efficient allocation of resources while positively impacting clinical practice. In this paper, we provide an overview of economic evaluation methods and a real-world example applying one method of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis) in nursing research.

OBJECTIVE: Published evidence on health service interventions should inform decision-making in local health services, but primary effectiveness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses are unlikely to reflect contexts other than those in which the evaluations were undertaken. A ten-step framework was developed and applied to use published evidence as the basis for local-level economic evaluations that estimate the expected costs and effects of new service intervention options in specific local contexts.
METHODS: Working with a multidisciplinary group of local clinicians, the framework was applied to evaluate intervention options for preventing hospital-acquired hypoglycemia. The framework included: clinical audit and analyses of local health systems data to understand the local context and estimate baseline event rates; pragmatic literature review to identify evidence on relevant intervention options; expert elicitation to adjust published intervention effect estimates to reflect the local context; and modeling to synthesize and calibrate data derived from the disparate data sources.
RESULTS: From forty-seven studies identified in the literature review, the working group selected three interventions for evaluation. The local-level economic evaluation generated estimates of intervention costs and a range of cost, capacity and patient outcome-related consequences, which informed working group recommendations to implement two of the interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The applied framework for modeled local-level economic evaluation was valued by local stakeholders, in particular the structured, formal approach to identifying and interpreting published evidence alongside local data. Key methodological issues included the handling of alternative reported outcomes and the elicitation of the expected intervention effects in the local context.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on emergency department (ED) care in Canada and around the world. To prevent transmission of COVID-19, personal protective equipment (PPE) was required for all ED care providers in contact with suspected cases. With mass vaccination and improvements in several infection prevention components, our hypothesis is that the risks of transmission of COVID-19 will be significantly reduced and that current PPE use will have economic and ecological consequences that exceed its anticipated benefits. Evidence is needed to evaluate PPE use so that recommendations can ensure the clinical, economic, and environmental efficiency (ie, eco-efficiency) of its use.
OBJECTIVE: To support the development of recommendations for the eco-efficient use of PPE, our research objectives are to (1) estimate the clinical effectiveness (reduced transmission, hospitalizations, mortality, and work absenteeism) of PPE against COVID-19 for health care workers; (2) estimate the financial cost of using PPE in the ED for the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients; and (3) estimate the ecological footprint of PPE use against COVID-19 in the ED.
METHODS: We will conduct a mixed method study to evaluate the eco-efficiency of PPE use in the 5 EDs of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval (Québec, Canada). To achieve our goals, the project will include four phases: systematic review of the literature to assess the clinical effectiveness of PPE (objective 1; phase 1); cost estimation of PPE use in the ED using a time-driven activity-based costing method (objective 2; phase 2); ecological footprint estimation of PPE use using a life cycle assessment approach (objective 3; phase 3); and cost-consequence analysis and focus groups (integration of objectives 1 to 3; phase 4).
RESULTS: The first 3 phases have started. The results of these phases will be available in 2023. Phase 4 will begin in 2023 and results will be available in 2024.
CONCLUSIONS: While the benefits of PPE use are likely to diminish as health care workers\' immunity increases, it is important to assess its economic and ecological impacts to develop recommendations to guide its eco-efficient use.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42022302598; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=302598.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/50682.

UNASSIGNED: The objective in this study was to assess the clinical and economic implications of the inclusion of rivaroxaban as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the United States (US).
UNASSIGNED: A cost-consequence model was adapted to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from multiple sources: efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban + aspirin vs. aspirin alone were abstracted from COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized clinical trials; the prevalence of chronic and symptomatic PAD and incidence rates of clinical events (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], major adverse limb events [MALE], and major bleeding), were abstracted from the analysis of claims data; healthcare costs of clinical events and wholesale acquisition costs for rivaroxaban were abstracted from the literature and Red Book, respectively (2022 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Over one year, with a 5% uptake of rivaroxaban, the model estimated rivaroxaban + aspirin to reduce 21 MACE/MALE events in the PAD patient population. The reduction in these clinical events offsets the increased risk of major bleeding (16 additional events), demonstrating a positive health benefit of the rivaroxaban addition. These benefits led to a $0.27 incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) to a US plan. The major driver of the incremental cost was the cost of rivaroxaban. In a subgroup of patients with the presence of any high-risk factor (heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, or history of vascular disease affecting two or more vascular beds), the incremental PMPM cost was $0.13.
UNASSIGNED: Rivaroxaban + aspirin was found to provide positive net clinical benefit on the annual number of MACE/MALE avoided, with a modest increase in the PMPM cost.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials confirmed the beneficial effects of adding pertuzumab (P) to the combination of trastuzumab-chemotherapy (TC) in the (neo)adjuvant setting of high-risk HER2-positive early breast cancer (HER2+BC). We evaluated the clinical, economic and societal impact of adding pertuzumab to neoadjuvant TC combination (TPC) in Italy.
METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis comparing TPC vs. TC was performed developing a cohort-based multi-state Markov model to estimate the clinical, societal and economic impact of the neoadjuvant therapy of TPC versus TC in HER2+BC at high-risk of recurrence. The model works on a cycle length of 1 month and 5-years-time horizon. Literature review-based data were used to populate the model. The following clinical and economic outcomes were estimated: cumulative incidence of loco-regional/distant recurrences, life of years and QALY and both direct and indirect costs (€). Finally, sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: TPC was associated with a 75,630 € saved of direct costs. Specifically, it was associated with an initial increase of treatment costs (+4.8%) followed by reduction of recurrence management cost (-20.4%). TPC was also associated with an indirect cost reduction of 1.40%, as well as decreased incidence of distant recurrence (-20.14%), days of work lost (-1.53%) and days lived with disability (-0.50%). Furthermore, TPC reported 10,47 QALY gained (+2.77%) compared to TC. The probability to achieve the pathological complete response (pCR) was the parameter that mostly affected the results in the sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that TPC combination could be a cost-saving option in patients with HER2+BC at high-risk of recurrence.

Deep sternal wound infections (DSWI) are severe complications in up to 1.36% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures in the United Kingdom. Each event adds between £4,000 and £11,000 in healthcare costs, owing primarily to prolonged hospitalisations. ECG devices have been shown to convey infection throughout perioperative CABG. On the other hand, single-patient ECG devices (spECG) can effectively reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), including DSWI, but no assessment of spECG impact in NHS cardiac units has been conducted.
To estimate the impact of spECG on NHS cardiac units, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis modeling the CABG care pathway in the United Kingdom using Simul8 software for a probabilistic, individual-patient simulation. The simulation time was 1 year, with each patient followed from admission through 30 days post-discharge. The base case simulation mirrors the cardiac unit of Bart Health NHS Trust, London. A total of 2,183 patients are generated with demographic and clinical attributes from probabilistic distributions informed by hospital-specific inputs from NHS Digital Data. The Brompton Harefield Infection Score (BHIS) is allocated to gauge the risk of SSI. Results are averaged across 50 independent and randomly seeded iterations.
Simulation results indicate a base-case savings of £388 per patient, determined by the incidence of infections rather than the number of CABG procedures. In the base-case simulation, the mean cost of care with rECG was £13,096, whereas the mean cost with spECG was £12,708, resulting in a cost saving of £388 (2021 GBP). The simulation yielded an overall 8.6% SSI incidence rECG, whereas the incidence of SSIs with spECG was 6.9%. The model was most sensitive to changes in general ward and ICU costs, and infection incidence was a stronger predictor of potential per-patient savings than annual CABG volume.
Single-patient ECG is a sustainable and effective alternative to reusable ECG cables and lead wires in terms of patient safety and resource allocation.