Anton L V Avanceña1, Nicholas Miller2, Sarah E Uttal3, David W Hutton4, Jessica L Mellinger5. 1. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: antonlv@umich.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alcohol use treatment such as medication-assisted therapies (MATs) and counseling are available and effective in promoting alcohol abstinence. We sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of different alcohol use treatments among patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis (AC). METHODS: We simulated a cohort of patients with compensated AC receiving care from a hepatology clinic over their lifetimes. We estimated costs (in 2017 US$) and benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from healthcare and societal perspectives. Transition probabilities, costs, and health utility weights were taken from the literature. Treatment effects of FDA-approved MATs (acamprosate and naltrexone) and non-FDA approved MATs (baclofen, gabapentin, and topiramate) and counseling were based on a study of employer-insured patients with AC. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to understand the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to a do-nothing scenario, MATs and counseling were found to be cost-saving from a healthcare perspective, which means that they provide more benefits with less costs than no intervention. Compared to other interventions, acamprosate and naltrexone cost the least and provide the most QALYs. If the effectiveness of MATs and counseling decreased, these interventions would still be cost-effective based on the commonly used $100,000 per QALY gained threshold. Several sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that our main findings are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with compensated AC, MATs and counseling are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to prevent decompensation and improve health. Health policies (e.g. payer reimbursement) should emphasize and appropriately compensate for these interventions. LAY SUMMARY: Alcohol use treatments, including physician counseling and medication-assisted therapies (MATs), improve the outcomes of patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis, though use and access have remained suboptimal. In this study, we found that counseling and MATs are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to help patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis abstain from alcohol and improve their health. Wider use of these interventions should be encouraged.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Alcohol use treatment such as medication-assisted therapies (MATs) and counseling are available and effective in promoting alcohol abstinence. We sought to explore the cost-effectiveness of different alcohol use treatments among patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis (AC). METHODS: We simulated a cohort of patients with compensated AC receiving care from a hepatology clinic over their lifetimes. We estimated costs (in 2017 US$) and benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from healthcare and societal perspectives. Transition probabilities, costs, and health utility weights were taken from the literature. Treatment effects of FDA-approved MATs (acamprosate and naltrexone) and non-FDA approved MATs (baclofen, gabapentin, and topiramate) and counseling were based on a study of employer-insured patients with AC. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to understand the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared to a do-nothing scenario, MATs and counseling were found to be cost-saving from a healthcare perspective, which means that they provide more benefits with less costs than no intervention. Compared to other interventions, acamprosate and naltrexone cost the least and provide the most QALYs. If the effectiveness of MATs and counseling decreased, these interventions would still be cost-effective based on the commonly used $100,000 per QALY gained threshold. Several sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that our main findings are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with compensated AC, MATs and counseling are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to prevent decompensation and improve health. Health policies (e.g. payer reimbursement) should emphasize and appropriately compensate for these interventions. LAY SUMMARY: Alcohol use treatments, including physician counseling and medication-assisted therapies (MATs), improve the outcomes of patients with compensated alcohol-related cirrhosis, though use and access have remained suboptimal. In this study, we found that counseling and MATs are extremely cost-effective, and in some cases cost-saving, interventions to help patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis abstain from alcohol and improve their health. Wider use of these interventions should be encouraged.
Authors: Bridget F Grant; Risë B Goldstein; Tulshi D Saha; S Patricia Chou; Jeesun Jung; Haitao Zhang; Roger P Pickering; W June Ruan; Sharon M Smith; Boji Huang; Deborah S Hasin Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Todd A Olmstead; Fiona S Graff; Alyssa Ames-Sikora; Barbara S McCrady; Ayorkor Gaba; Elizabeth E Epstein Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Helmut K Seitz; Ramon Bataller; Helena Cortez-Pinto; Bin Gao; Antoni Gual; Carolin Lackner; Philippe Mathurin; Sebastian Mueller; Gyongyi Szabo; Hidekazu Tsukamoto Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Peter Jepsen; Frederik Kraglund; Joe West; Gerda E Villadsen; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Hendrik Vilstrup Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Daniel E Jonas; Halle R Amick; Cynthia Feltner; Georgiy Bobashev; Kathleen Thomas; Roberta Wines; Mimi M Kim; Ellen Shanahan; C Elizabeth Gass; Cassandra J Rowe; James C Garbutt Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shari Rogal; Ada Youk; Hongwei Zhang; Walid F Gellad; Michael J Fine; Chester B Good; Maggie Chartier; Andrea DiMartini; Timothy Morgan; Ramon Bataller; Kevin L Kraemer Journal: Hepatology Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 17.425