Nazila Assasi

Cost-utility of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) compared with corticosteroids for the treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) in Canada.

ObjectivesIntravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has demonstrated improvement in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) patients in placebo controlled trials. However, IVIG is also much more expensive than alternative treatments such as corticosteroids. The objective of the paper is to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the cost-effectiveness of IVIG compared to corticosteroid treatment of CIDP.MethodsA markov model was used to evaluate the costs and QALYs for IVIG and corticosteroids over 5 years of treatment for CIDP. Patients initially responding to IVIG could remain a responder or relapse every 12 week model cycle. Non-responding IVIG patients were assumed to be switched to corticosteroids. Patients on corticosteroids were at risk of a number of adverse events (fracture, diabetes, glaucoma, cataract, serious infection) in each cycle.ResultsOver the 5 year time horizon, the model estimated the incremental costs and QALYs of IVIG treatment compared to corticosteroid treatment to be

Canadian cost-utility analysis of initiation and maintenance treatment with anti-TNF-α drugs for refractory Crohn's disease

124,065 and 0.177 respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained of IVIG was estimated to be

Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review

687,287. The cost per QALY of IVIG was sensitive to the assumptions regarding frequency and dosing of maintenance IVIG.ConclusionsBased on common willingness to pay thresholds, IVIG would not be perceived as a cost effective treatment for CIDP.

Triple Therapy for the Management of COPD: A Review

OBJECTIVES Crohns disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms include but are not limited to abdominal pain, nausea, emesis, and diarrhea. Anti-TNF-α drugs are increasingly being used in patients with CD who have inadequate response to conventional therapy. However, these medications are quite expensive. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-utility of two anti-TNF-α drugs (infliximab, adalimumab) for refractory CD. METHODS A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and QALYs of three treatments (usual care, infliximab, adalimumab) over a 5 year time horizon. After initial treatment, patients achieve remission, achieve treatment response or remain in the drug refractory health state. Patients who achieve remission or treatment response are at risk of relapse each 3 month model cycle. Patients in the drug refractory health state either remain in the health state or have surgery in each cycle. Different costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states. Model input parameters including initial response rates, relapse rates, utility values were derived from published literature. RESULTS Usual care had both the lowest expected costs (

Economic Evaluations Conducted for Assessment of Genetic Testing Technologies: A Systematic Review

17,017) and QALYs (2.555), while infliximab had both the highest expected costs (

Results of a model analysis to estimate cost utility and value of information for intravenous immunoglobulin in Canadian adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura.

54,084) and QALYs (2.721). The incremental cost per QALY moving from usual care to adalimumab and from adalimumab to infliximab was estimated to be to be

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation for Rhythm Control of Atrial Fibrillation

193,305 and

Patient outcomes after anti TNF-α drugs for Crohn’s disease

451,165, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Based on common willingness to pay thresholds, ant-TNF-α drugs would not be perceived as a cost effective treatment for refractory CD.

BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS INFLUENCING ETHICAL EVALUATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Despite the advances made in the development of ethical frameworks for health technology assessment (HTA), there is no clear agreement on the scope and details of a practical approach to address ethical aspects in HTA. This systematic review aimed to identify existing guidance documents for incorporation of ethics in HTA to provide an overview of their methodological features. The review identified 43 conceptual frameworks or practical guidelines, varying in their philosophical approach, structure, and comprehensiveness. They were designed for different purposes throughout the HTA process, ranging from helping HTA-producers in identification, appraisal and analysis of ethical data to supporting decision-makers in making value-sensitive decisions. They frequently promoted using analytical methods that combined normative reflection with participatory approaches. The choice of a method for collection and analysis of ethical data seems to depend on the context in which technology is being assessed, the purpose of analysis, and availability of required resources.

Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework

Triple therapy for COPD consists of a long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator, a long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilator, and an inhaled corticosteroid. Guidelines from the Canadian Thoracic Society advocate triple therapy for some patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. The objective of this review was to evaluate the evidence based clinical efficacy of triple therapy compared to dual bronchodilator therapy (long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator + beta-agonist bronchodilator) or long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy for managing COPD. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant clinical evaluations of triple therapy in the management of moderate to severe COPD. Databases searched included: Medline; EMBASE; CINAHL and PubMed (non-Medline records only). Of 2,314 publications, 4 articles evaluated triple therapy for the management of COPD. Hospitalization rates for COPD exacerbations, reported in 2 trials, were significantly reduced with triple therapy compared to long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy, with reported relative risks of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.86, p = 0.01) and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.16–0.78, p = 0.011). Exacerbation data is inconsistent between the two trials reporting this outcome. Lung function, dyspnea and quality of life data show statistical significant changes with triple therapy compared to long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy but the changes do not reach clinical importance. Triple therapy does decrease the number of hospitalizations for severe/acute COPD exacerbations compared with long-acting anti-cholinergic bronchodilator monotherapy. There is insufficient evidence to determine if triple therapy is superior to dual bronchodilator therapy.