Most studies that were used in the analysis reported cost estimates that were not adjusted for possible confounders.
However, the routine data used for analysis reported costs for whole calendar years only, thus guiding the presentation of results.
The EQ-5D data valued by the Danish set of preference weights will qualify as a cost-utility analysis reporting the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [ 36].
14, 15 Although our findings of significant and substantial cost savings may appear to conflict with a recent economic analysis reporting increased costs attributable to parenteral nutrition, 19 this previously published economic analysis addressed a different clinical indication for parenteral nutrition than did our CMA.
A similar UK-based analysis reported that costs in the 5 years post-treatment were 13-fold higher for patients who failed treatment versus those who achieved SVR, which increased to 56-fold for patients who initially failed treatment and were then retreated [ 85].
A secondary analysis took the form of a cost-consequences analysis reporting all trial outcomes and costs from the perspective of both NHS and patients.
Canadian authors, Locker et al. [ 4] used a more direct analysis, and demonstrated that those reporting cost barriers to accessing dental care also reported worse oral health outcomes after controlling for private insurance coverage, household income, sex, age and education.
Cost-utility analysis reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.
This analysis reported that the cost effectiveness of bortezomib (ICER £17 161–33 539 per life-year gained), based on a mean additional survival benefit of 8 12 months, with good quality of life, compared favorably to other currently used salvage therapies (Bagust et al. 2004).
13 This study provides new data from a prespecified subgroup analysis, reporting the first detailed assessment of cost- effectiveness within risk-defined subgroups resulting from a stratified treatment approach.
