BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies.

We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty.

Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.

OBJECTIVES

During the early COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to mid-2021), the Philippine government relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ). With the emergency use authorization of vaccines, assessing their potential impact became essential. This study develops a Philippine model to evaluate the epidemiologic and economic effects of COVID-19 vaccination, estimating its impact on mortality, hospitalization, and mild/asymptomatic cases under various prioritization strategies, including booster doses and the presence of variants of concern.

A dynamic transmission model (DTM) with an SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered) structure was calibrated using local data, including case numbers, deaths, seroprevalence, vaccination coverage, and intervention costs. The model’s outputs informed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from health system and societal perspectives over a two-year horizon. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were calculated, with costs adjusted to 2020 prices and discount rates of 3%-10% applied. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic approaches, assessed robustness, while a budget impact analysis (BIA) estimated government expenditures in 2020 and 2021.

Without vaccination, daily cases could have peaked at 400,000 between February and May 2021. A vaccination campaign was projected to reduce cases to around 20,000, significantly lowering mortality.  

From the health system perspective, the estimated cost without vaccination was PhP 14.46 trillion, with 93.83 million QALYs. With vaccination, costs dropped to PhP 2.36 trillion, while QALYs increased to 101.79 million. From the societal perspective, costs were PhP 14.68 trillion without vaccination and PhP 2.38 trillion with vaccination, with the same QALY outcomes.

CEA results confirmed that vaccination was cost-saving, with ICERs of -PhP 1,520,727.28 per QALY (health system) and -PhP 1,546,171.63 per QALY (societal). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings, with oneway sensitivity analysis showing minimal impact from parameter changes and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming cost-saving outcomes. The BIA estimated government expenditures of PhP 983.45 billion in 2020 and PhP 1.47 trillion in 2021 for the vaccine scenario, lower than the no-vaccine scenario.

Indeed, our modeling has shown that COVID-19 vaccines could mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and provide good value for money.

OBJECTIVES

The burden of oral diseases is high in the Philippines. The global burden of disease study in 2019 estimated that 44 million Filipinos are affected by oral disorder. More specifically, 29 million Filipinos have untreated dental caries. Outpatients' dental health services are not covered by PhilHealth benefit package. There is a need to include key oral health interventions such as basic prevention and treatment in PhilHealth benefit package to be delivered at the primary health care settings (WHO TSA 153980). The study aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a set of oral health care services to be delivered at different levels of health care within a comprehensive PhilHealth benefit package.

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of including basic oral health services in the PhilHealth benefit package using a Markov modelling approach. The target population consists of Filipino adults and children at risk for dental diseases who are potential beneficiaries of PhilHealth. The intervention under consideration includes dental consultation, oral prophylaxis, topical fluoride application, silver diamine fluoride application, dental filling, and tooth extraction. The comparator is the current standard of care, which involves out-of-pocket payments for oral health services or limited access to subsidized dental care. The primary outcomes assessed include the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A Markov model was constructed with a time horizon of 50 years to simulate the lifespan of Filipinos up to the average life expectancy of 70 years old, using a cycle length of one year to reflect disease progression and treatment effects overtime. Model parameters were derived from literature and expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, were conducted to assess uncertainty in model inputs. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective incorporating direct medical and non-medical costs, and indirect costs.

A Markov model showed that a subsidized package is a cost-effective approach compared to the current situation of no subsidy, with an ICER of PhP 75,636 (1,535.76 USD) per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. The computed ICER was considered good value for money as it was below 2021 GDP per capita of the Philippines of PhP 174,286 (3,538.80 USD). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of preventive treatment had the most significant impact on the model, and a price threshold of greater than PhP 3,062 (62.17 USD) for preventive treatment will render the subsidized package no longer cost-effective. The budget impact analysis showed a 1.63% increase in budget annually with the current situation of no subsidy. Rolling out a subsidized oral health package will entail a significant increase in government expenses during the first year but a decreasing trend of 1-2% annually for the following years as the program takes its effect.

A subsidized oral health package is a costeffective approach from a societal perspective. It will entail a significant increase in government expenditure during the start of its roll out but will eventually result in a decreasing trend of expenses as the years progress.

INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonography (US) is the current standard of care for imaging surveillance in patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been explored as an alternative, given the higher sensitivity of MRI, although this comes at a higher cost. We performed a cost-effective analysis comparing US and dual-sequence non-contrast-enhanced MRI (NCEMRI) for HCC surveillance in the local setting. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis of no surveillance, US surveillance and NCEMRI surveillance was performed using Markov modelling and microsimulation. At-risk patient cohort was simulated and followed up for 40 years to estimate the patients' disease status, direct medical costs and effectiveness. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. RESULTS: Exactly 482,000 patients with an average age of 40 years were simulated and followed up for 40 years. The average total costs and QALYs for the three scenarios - no surveillance, US surveillance and NCEMRI surveillance - were SGD 1,193/7.460 QALYs, SGD 8,099/11.195 QALYs and SGD 9,720/11.366 QALYs, respectively. CONCLUSION Despite NCEMRI having a superior diagnostic accuracy, it is a less cost-effective strategy than US for HCC surveillance in the general at-risk population. Future local cost-effectiveness analyses should include stratifying surveillance methods with a variety of imaging techniques (US, NCEMRI, contrast-enhanced MRI) based on patients' risk profiles.
Humans ; Adult ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/diagnostic imaging* ; Liver Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging* ; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods*

Background and Objective: Oral ivermectin is recommended as an alternative to topical permethrin in Japanese, European, and CDC-STI guidelines for treating classic scabies. The combination of oral ivermectin and topical permethrin is also used in some settings. Partial economic evaluations conducted in India and Egypt have conflicting results, and no cost-effectiveness analysis in the Philippines has compared ivermectin-based regimens to permethrin for scabies treatment. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin, compared to permethrin, in the treatment of Filipino adult patients with classic scabies. Methods: We used a decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two regimens, oral ivermectin alone or in combination with permethrin, compared with permethrin to treat adults and children aged five years and older with classic scabies in the outpatient setting from the household perspective in the Philippines. We estimated total costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) over a one-month follow-up. Input parameters were obtained from secondary data, such as effect estimates for probabilities of clinical outcomes from a network meta-analysis, DALYs from the Global Burden of Disease 2019, and prevailing market cost in the Philippines (DPRI 2022 with recommended markup by DOH, and leading drugstores) as of August 2022. We computed for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB) to determine which of the interventions are cost-effective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty. Results: Ivermectin-based regimens are suggested to be likely cost-saving compared to permethrin in the Philippine outpatient setting. Base case analysis showed that oral ivermectin had higher cost-savings (change in cost, -1,039.31; change in DALYS, 0.00027), while combination oral ivermectin/permethrin had higher DALYs averted (change in cost, PhP -1,019.78; change in DALYs, 0.00045), compared to permethrin. Combination oral ivermectin/permethrin (56%) was the most cost-effective, followed by oral ivermectin (44%) compared to permethrin (0%) through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Estimates for ivermectin were sensitive to risk of cure for ivermectin vs permethrin using 1-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Oral ivermectin was favored over combination oral ivermectin/permethrin at all thresholds based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Conclusion Both ivermectin-based regimens seem to be cost-saving compared to permethrin in the treatment of classic scabies in the Philippine outpatient setting. Clinicians may consider oral ivermectin, alone or in combination with permethrin as an alternative first-line or second-line treatment depending on patient preference, adverse event risk profile, availability, and economic capacity. This needs to be confirmed using primary data from Filipino patients to enhance the robustness of the findings and support evidence-based local decision-making in different settings. Less uncertainty in modelled parameters can give greater confidence in the results, which can be adopted for budget impact analysis and allow more rational resource allocation. Value of information analysis can be done to determine whether the expense of future RCTs or surveys in Filipinos to collect primary data is worth it. The cost of reducing uncertainty, if deemed worth the cost of further studies, may facilitate population-level decision-making and budget planning. Findings may further inform practice guideline development, coverage decisions, and national control program planning by providing the most cost-effective scabies intervention.
Scabies ; Ivermectin ; Permethrin ; Cost-Benefit Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study determined which of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGF) agents is the most cost-effective in treating patients with diabetic macular edema (DME).

This study was a cost-effectiveness analysis. A decision-analytic Markov cohort model of the natural history and treatment of DME was developed. Data was obtained from a meta-analysis by Virgili et al. on anti-VEGFs for DME in which intravitreal injections of bevacizumab given monthly, 6-weekly, and 12-weekly; ranibizumab given monthly, bimonthly, and as necessary; aflibercept given monthly, bimonthly, and as necessary; and macular laser therapy were evaluated for efficacy and safety in 4,413 eyes. Costs were obtained from local standard retail price at a tertiary government institution and assumed an out-of-pocket expenditure. The study measured and compared gains in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental costeffectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each treatment regimen.

Quarterly bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab (3.82 QALY), and bimonthly ranibizumab injections were the three most beneficial dosing schedules in terms of clinical effectiveness at 3.81, 3.82, and 3.89 QALY, respectively. However, in terms of cost, bevacizumab was substantially most affordable. Quarterly dosing of bevacizumab provided the best value for money, with an ICER of PhP 9,661.70 per QALY gained.

Quarterly intravitreal injections of bevacizumab were identified as the most cost-effective treatment regimen for DME. To be considered cost-effective alternatives, ranibizumab requires an 85% price reduction, while aflibercept needs a price reduction exceeding 95%. We recommend quarterly bevacizumab injections be included in the national insurance coverage package, given their cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy in the treatment of DME.

Health economic analyses are comparative analysis of healthcare technologies or health strategies and their alternative options in terms of their costs and consequences.1 By doing health economic analysis, we can obtain incremental cost-outcome ratios, the relation of the estimated additional costs, and the estimated additional outcomes saved or lost using alternative healthcare technology.2 They can provide useful data to doctors, patients, policymakers, and the public about choices that can affect health, especially the use of resources.

In essence, economic evaluation aims to characterize the efficiency of healthcare interventions. It provides a structured approach to measuring and comparing the health outcomes and costs of competing alternative interventions over time and across populations.

Background: Cost-effectivenessstudiesareimportant for chronic diseases such as psoriasis, which may cause significant financial burden and negatively affect the patient's quality of life. Objectives: This study evaluated which among the treatment options, namely topicals phototherapy (TP), topicals + systemic (TS), and topicals + biologics (TB), is the most cost-effective for the management of moderate to severe psoriasis at the Rizal Medical Center's Psoriasis Center Methods: A total of 65 moderate to severe psoriasis patients seen at the Rizal Medical Center's Psoriasis Center in 2021 were included in this retrospective cross-sectional study. Chart review was conducted to account all direct costs of treatment. The effectiveness in relation to the overall cost was assessed using the psoriasis area severity index (PASI) and the dermatological life quality index (DLQI). Results: Our study showed that TS is the most cost-effective treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis with the lowest cost per PASI75 and DLQI<5 improvement valued at Php335.36, followed by TP valued at Php 762.87, and lastly by TB at Php 19,058.03. Despite TB incurring the highest cost, all patients in this treatment group showed the highest mean difference of PASI and DLQI. Conclusions Our findings suggest that topical with systemic medication is the most cost-effective treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis
Psoriasis ; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and economic efficiency of Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis(CRS). The randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray in the treatment of CRS was searched against EMbase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, SinoMed, and Wanfang. The efficacy, nasal mucociliary transport time, and safety of the therapy above in the treatment of CRS were analyzed with single-group rate and Meta-analysis, and the economy and sensitivity were evaluated from the perspective of payer. A total of 9 RCTs were included, including 1 145 patients. Meta-analysis showed that compared with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray alone, Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray in the treatment of CRS patients increased the effective rate(RR=1.17, 95%CI[1.11, 1.24], P<0.000 01) and shortened the nasal mucociliary transport time(MD=-3.32, 95%CI[-5.86,-0.78], P=0.01), there was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the treatment costs of the control group and the observation group were 44.15 yuan and 1 044.96 yuan, respectively. In the Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray treatment group, 75.48 yuan was spent to improve the effective rate of CRS by 1%. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated the days of treatment, the RR of Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray, the price of unit preparation of Biyuan Tongqiao Granules, and the effective rate of Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray alone had great influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In conclusion, Biyuan Tongqiao Granules combined with Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray improves the therapeutic effect on CRS. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness to pay was greater than 7 920 yuan(less than 0.1 of GDP per capita 8 098 yuan), the combined therapy was economically superior to the control. Due to the limited number of articles published, it is necessary to carry out a real-world clinical trial of Biyuan Tongqiao Gra-nules and Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray in the treatment of CRS, so as to compare the cost-effectiveness of Biyuan Tongqiao Granules and Triamcinolone Acetonide Nasal Spray.
Humans ; Triamcinolone Acetonide/adverse effects* ; Nasal Sprays ; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ; Sinusitis/drug therapy* ; Chronic Disease

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Chaiyin Granules compared with Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules in the treatment of influenza(exogenous wind-heat syndrome). Based on a randomized, double-blind, positive drug parallel control clinical trial, this study evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of Chaiyin Granules with cost-effectiveness analysis method. A total of 116 patients with influenza from eight hospitals(grade Ⅱ level A above) in 6 cities were selected in this study, including 78 cases in the experimental group with Chaiyin Granules and Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules placebo, and 38 cases in the control group with Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules and Chaiyin Granules placebo. The total cost of this study included direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost, and indirect cost. The remission time of clinical symptoms, cure time/cure rate, antipyretic onset time/complete antipyretic time, viral nucleic acid negative rate, and traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) syndrome curative effect were selected as the effect indicators for cost-effectiveness analysis. Four-quadrant diagram was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The results showed that Chaiyin Granules were not inferior to Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules in the remission time of clinical symptoms of influenza(3.1 d vs 2.9 d, P=0.360, non-inferiority margin was 0.5 d). Compared with Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules, Chaiyin Granules would delay the remission time of clinic symptoms of influenza for 1 d, but could save 213.9 yuan. 1 d delay in cure time could save 149.3 yuan; 1% reduction in the cure rate could save 8.2 yuan; 1 d delay in antipyretic onset time could save 295.4 yuan; 1 d delay in complete antipyretic time could save 114.3 yuan; 1% reduction in the 5-day cure rate of TCM syndrome could save 19.2 yuan. Different from other indicators, there was no statistically significant difference between two groups in the effect of negative conversion rate of viral nucleic acid, but the cost was lower and the effect was superior, and the pharmacoeconomics was not different from that of Oseltamivir Phosphate Capsules in the field of influenza treatment.
Humans ; Antipyretics/therapeutic use* ; Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use* ; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ; Influenza, Human/drug therapy* ; Nucleic Acids/therapeutic use* ; Oseltamivir/therapeutic use* ; Phosphates/therapeutic use* ; Treatment Outcome ; Double-Blind Method