意大利使用网片修复腹膜膨出与不进行干预的经济价值比较。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-14 DOI:10.1007/s10198-024-01685-z
Carla Rognoni, Alessandro Carrara, Micaela Piccoli, Vincenzo Trapani, Nereo Vettoretto, Giorgio Soliani, Rosanna Tarricone
{"title":"意大利使用网片修复腹膜膨出与不进行干预的经济价值比较。","authors":"Carla Rognoni, Alessandro Carrara, Micaela Piccoli, Vincenzo Trapani, Nereo Vettoretto, Giorgio Soliani, Rosanna Tarricone","doi":"10.1007/s10198-024-01685-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.</p>","PeriodicalId":51416,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512883/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.\",\"authors\":\"Carla Rognoni, Alessandro Carrara, Micaela Piccoli, Vincenzo Trapani, Nereo Vettoretto, Giorgio Soliani, Rosanna Tarricone\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10198-024-01685-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11512883/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01685-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-024-01685-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:腹直肌舒张症(RAD)主要会导致大小便失禁和下背部疼痛。尽管其发病率很高,但在手术适应症方面尚未达成共识。我们从意大利国家医疗服务体系(NHS)和社会角度出发,通过成本效益和预算影响分析,对 RAD 修复术(植入网片的微创技术)和不治疗(标准护理 - SOC)进行了比较:方法:建立了一个包括社会成本和生产力损失的模型,该模型是通过在线进行社会经济问卷调查得出的,其中包括用于评估生活质量的 EuroQol。国家医疗服务体系(NHS)的成本以报销标准为基础:在一生中,从社会角度来看,SOC 的估计成本为 64,115 欧元,RAD 修复的估计成本为 46,541 欧元;两组的 QALY 分别为 19.55 和 25.75。从国家医疗服务体系的角度来看,RAD修复术与SOC相比,每位患者的额外费用为5104欧元,导致ICUR为824欧元。根据考虑的角度不同,RAD 修复术与 SOC 相比,既可能节省成本,也可能具有成本效益。考虑到目前100% SOC的情况,如果在未来5年内将RAD修复术的普及率从2%提高到10%,那么整个社会将增加184,147,624欧元的成本(87%由NHS承担),并增加16,155 QALYs:鉴于缺乏对微创 RAD 修复的经济评估,本研究提供了相关的临床和经济证据,有助于改善决策过程,并在相互竞争的目标之间分配稀缺资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.

Economic value of diastasis repair with the use of mesh compared to no intervention in Italy.

Aim: Rectus abdominal diastasis (RAD) can cause mainly incontinence and lower-back pain. Despite its high incidence, there is no consensus regarding surgical indication. We aimed at comparing RAD repair (minimally invasive technique with mesh implant) with no treatment (standard of care - SOC) through cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses from both National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspectives in Italy.

Methods: A model was developed including social costs and productivity losses derived by the online administration of a socio-economic questionnaire, including the EuroQol for the assessment of quality of life. Costs for the NHS were based on reimbursement tariffs.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, estimated costs were 64,115€ for SOC and 46,541€ for RAD repair in the societal perspective; QALYs were 19.55 and 25.75 for the two groups, respectively. Considering the NHS perspective, RAD repair showed an additional cost per patient of 5,104€ compared to SOC, leading to an ICUR of 824€. RAD repair may be either cost-saving or cost-effective compared to SOC depending on the perspective considered. Considering a current scenario of 100% SOC, an increased diffusion of RAD repair from 2 to 10% in the next 5 years would lead to an incremental cost of 184,147,624€ for the whole society (87% borne by the NHS) and to incremental 16,155 QALYs.

Conclusion: In light of the lack of economic evaluations for minimally invasive RAD repair, the present study provides relevant clinical and economic evidence to help improving the decision-making process and allocating scarce resources between competing ends.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.30%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Health Economics is a journal of Health Economics and associated disciplines. The growing demand for health economics and the introduction of new guidelines in various European countries were the motivation to generate a highly scientific and at the same time practice oriented journal considering the requirements of various health care systems in Europe. The international scientific board of opinion leaders guarantees high-quality, peer-reviewed publications as well as articles for pragmatic approaches in the field of health economics. We intend to cover all aspects of health economics: • Basics of health economic approaches and methods • Pharmacoeconomics • Health Care Systems • Pricing and Reimbursement Systems • Quality-of-Life-Studies The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements. Officially cited as: Eur J Health Econ
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信