Background: Cost utility analysis (CUA) using SF-36/SF-12 data has been facilitated by the development of several preference-based algorithms. The purpose of this study was to illustrate how decision-making could be affected by the choice of preference-based algorithms for the SF-36 and SF-12, and provide some guidance on selecting an appropriate algorithm.Methods: Two sets of data were used: (1) a clinical trial of adult asthma patients; and (2) a longitudinal study of post-stroke patients. Incremental costs were assumed to be $2000 per year over standard treatment, and QALY gains realized over a 1-year period. Ten published algorithms were identified, denoted by first author: Brazier (SF-36), Brazier (SF-12), Shmueli, Fryback, Lundberg, Nichol, Franks (3 algorithms), and Lawrence. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) for each algorithm, stated in dollars per quality-adjusted life year ($/QALY), were ranked and compared between datasets.Results: In the asthma patients, estimated ICURs ranged from Lawrence's SF-12 algorithm at $30,769/QALY (95% CI: 26,316 to 36,697) to Brazier's SF-36 algorithm at $63,492/QALY (95% CI: 48,780 to 83,333). ICURs for the stroke cohort varied slightly more dramatically. The MEPS-based algorithm by Franks et al. provided the lowest ICUR at $27,972/QALY (95% CI: 20,942 to 41,667). The Fryback and Shmueli algorithms provided ICURs that were greater than $50,000/QALY and did not have confidence intervals that overlapped with most of the other algorithms. The ICUR-based ranking of algorithms was strongly correlated between the asthma and stroke datasets (r = 0.60).Conclusion: SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithms produced a wide range of ICURs that could potentially lead to different reimbursement decisions. Brazier's SF-36 and SF-12 algorithms have a strong methodological and theoretical basis and tended to generate relatively higher ICUR estimates, considerations that support a preference for these algorithms over the alternatives. The "second-generation" algorithms developed from scores mapped from other indirect preference-based measures tended to generate lower ICURs that would promote greater adoption of new technology. There remains a need for an SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm based on the US general population that has strong theoretical and methodological foundations.

Background: The benefits of automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) have been established, but patient adherence to treatment remains a concern. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs are a potential solution; however, the cost implications are not well established. This study modeled, from the payer perspective, expected net costs and clinical consequences of a novel RPM program in Colombia. Methods: Amarkov model was used to project costs and clinical outcomes for APD patients with and without RPM. Clinical inputs were directly estimated from Renal Care Services data or taken from the literature. Dialysis costs were estimated from national fees. Inpatient costs were obtained from a recent Colombian study. The model projected overall direct costs and several clinical outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were also conducted to characterize uncertainty in the results. Results: The model projected that the implementation of an RPM program costing US$35 per month in a cohort of 100 APD patients over 1 year would save US$121,233. The model also projected 31 additional months free of complications, 27 fewer hospitalizations, 518 fewer hospitalization days, and 6 fewer peritonitis episodes. In the DSA, results were most sensitive to hospitalization rates and days of hospitalization, but cost savings were robust. The PSA found there was a 91% chance for the RPM program to be cost saving. Conclusion: The results of the model suggest that RPM is cost-effective in APD patients which should be verified by a rigorous prospective cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials demonstrated the efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the reduction of cardiovascular complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is unclear how use of the 3 antiplatelet medications has changed in commercially insured patients since the advent of the new agents. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the adoption of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the onset of ACS and (b) explore patient factors associated with the selection of the drug to provide insight into utilization patterns of these antiplatelet agents. METHODS: Patients who received a new dispensing of an antiplatelet agent following a hospitalization for a PCI administered for ACS were identified from insurance claims between 2009 and 2013. Demographics and comorbid conditions were determined based on a 6-month period before the ACS event. Longitudinal trends in antiplatelet agent selection were illustrated usi...