Browsing by Author "Yan, Charles"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost Analysis of a Transition Care Bundle Compared with Usual Care for COPD Patients Being Discharged from Hospital: Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial
    (2023-03-11) Yan, Charles; Round, Jeff; Akpinar, Ilke; Atwood, Chantal E.; Deuchar, Lesly; Bhutani, Mohit; Leigh, Richard; Stickland, Michael K.
    Abstract Background Appropriate management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients following acute exacerbations can reduce the risk of future exacerbations, improve health status, and lower care costs. While a transition care bundle (TCB) was associated with lower readmissions to hospitals than usual care (UC), it remains unclear whether the TCB was associated with cost savings. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate how this TCB was associated with future Emergency Department (ED)/outpatient visits, hospital readmissions, and costs in Alberta, Canada. Methods Patients who were aged 35 years or older, who were admitted to hospital for a COPD exacerbation, and had not been treated with a care bundle received either TCB or UC. Those who received the TCB were then randomized to either TCB alone or TCB enhanced with a care coordinator. Data collected were ED/outpatient visits, hospital admissions and associated resources used for index admissions, and 7-, 30- and 90-day post-index discharge. A decision model with a 90-day time horizon was developed to estimate the cost. A generalized linear regression was conducted to adjust for imbalance in patient characteristics and comorbidities, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted on the proportion of patients’ combined ED/outpatient visits and inpatient admissions as well as the use of a care coordinator. Results Differences in length of stay (LOS) and costs between groups were statistically significant, although with some exceptions. Inpatient LOS and costs were 7.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.9–7.3) and Canadian dollars (CAN$) 13,131 (95% CI CAN$12,969–CAN$13,294) in UC, 6.1 days (95% CI 5.8–6.5) and CAN$7634 (95% CI CAN$7546–CAN$7722) in TCB with a coordinator, and 5.9 days (95% CI 5.6–6.2) and CAN$8080 (95% CI CAN$7975–CAN$8184) in TCB without a coordinator. Decision modelling indicated TCB was less costly than UC, with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of CAN$10,172 (40) versus CAN$15,588 (85), and TCB with a coordinator was slightly less costly than without a coordinator (CAN$10,109 [49] versus CAN$10,244 [57]). Conclusion This study suggests that the use of the TCB, with or without a care coordinator, appears to be an economically attractive intervention compared with UC.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized study of depression treatment options in primary care suggests stepped-care treatment may have economic benefits
    (2019-08-05) Yan, Charles; Rittenbach, Katherine; Souri, Sepideh; Silverstone, Peter H
    Abstract Background The stepped-care pathway (SCP) model has previously been found to be clinically effective for depressive disorder in some studies, but not all. Several groups have suggested that a stepped-care approach is the most appropriate in primary care. There is relatively little information, however, regarding which specific stepped-care pathway may be best. This analysis aimed to determine cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care pathway for depression in adults in primary care versus standard care (SC), treatment-as-usual (TAU), and online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Methods We conducted a randomized trial with 1400 participants and 12-week follow-up to assess the impact of the four treatment options on health-related quality of life and depression severity. Costs for the groups were calculated on the basis of physician, outpatient, and inpatient services using administrative data. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using this information. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplots were created using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 replications. A subgroup analysis was conducted for participants who screened as depressed at baseline. Results For all participants, TAU was the most expensive followed by CBT, SC, and SCP. QALYs were highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. In the depressed subgroup, TAU was still the most expensive, followed by SC, SCP, and CBT, while QALYs were still highest in SCP, followed by SC, CBT, and TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that SCP had a higher probability for cost-effectiveness than the other three alternatives in all participants. In the depressed subgroup, CBT was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay cut-off of less than approximately $50,000, while SCP was the highest at a cut-off higher than $50,000. There is considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimates. Conclusions Our analysis showed that even where there are no clinically significant differences in health outcomes between treatment approaches, there may be economic benefit from implementing the stepped-care model. While more work is required to identify the most clinically effective versions of a stepped-care pathway, our findings suggest that the care pathway may have potential to improve health care system value. Trial registration NCT01975207 . The trial was prospectively registered on 4 November 2013.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Health Economic Evaluation of Antimicrobial Stewardship, Procalcitonin Testing, and Rapid Blood Culture Identification in Sepsis Care: A 90-Day Model-Based, Cost-Utility Analysis
    (2024-11-19) Sligl, Wendy I.; Yan, Charles; Round, Jeff; Wang, Xiaoming; Chen, Justin Z.; Boehm, Cheyanne; Fong, Karen; Crick, Katelynn; Clua, Míriam G.; Codan, Cassidy; Dingle, Tanis C.; Prosser, Connie; Chen, Guanmin; Tse-Chang, Alena; Garros, Daniel; Zygun, David; Opgenorth, Dawn; Conly, John M.; Doig, Christopher J.; Lau, Vincent I.; Bagshaw, Sean M.
    Abstract Objective We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a bundled intervention including an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP), procalcitonin (PCT) testing, and rapid blood culture identification (BCID), compared with pre-implementation standard care in critically ill adult patients with sepsis. Methods We conducted a decision tree model-based cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a previously published pre- and post-implementation quality improvement study. We adopted a public Canadian healthcare payer’s perspective. Two intensive care units in Alberta with 727 adult critically ill patients were included. Our bundled intervention was compared with pre-implementation standard care. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD) over a time horizon from study entry to hospital discharge or death. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) of the intervention group compared with the pre-intervention group. The primary outcome was cost per sepsis case. Secondary outcomes included readmission rates, Clostridioides difficile infections, mortality, and lengths of stay. Uncertainty was investigated using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, cost-effectiveness plane scatterplots, and sensitivity analyses. Results Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per index hospital admission was CAD $83,251 ($107,926) for patients in the intervention group and CAD $87,044 ($104,406) for the pre-intervention group, though the difference ($3,793 [$7,897]) was not statistically significant. Costs were higher in the pre-intervention group for antibiotics, readmissions, and C. difficile infections. The intervention group had a lower mean expected cost; $110,580 ($108,917) compared with pre-intervention ($125,745 [$113,210]), with a difference of $15,165 ($8278). There were no statistically significant differences in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) between groups. The iNMB of the intervention group compared with pre-intervention was greater than $15,000 for willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY values of between $0 and $100,000. In our sensitivity analysis, the intervention was most likely to be cost-effective in roughly 56% of simulations at all WTP thresholds. Conclusions Our bundled intervention of ASP, PCT, and BCID among adult critically ill patients with sepsis was potentially cost-effective, but with substantial decision uncertainty.