52 The economic superiority of CMR was also recently described by the CEMARC group, although interestingly the base case costs employed for CMR and SPECT in their analysis differed by only a few pounds.
The Mahadevia et al (2003) study reported base-case costs for lung cancer screening procedures as well as favourable and unfavourable extremes.
Base-case costs for women assessed using Mammostrat® were $15,782, compared with $18,051 for women assessed with Oncotype DX®.
21 The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis using base case costs are presented in table 5 for both estimates of effectiveness, including and excluding data from the Home-HF study, 12 to address the uncertainty in the effectiveness evidence.
Base case costs used in the model are summarized in Table 3. Costs were obtained using an ingredients approach [14] for the observed costs per screening (e.g., STI screening, personnel time costs during counseling) during the Mujer Segura study.
The disease-specific cost rates for the intervention scenario were calculated as the base case cost rate x (1-PIF) for each age and sex category before input into the intervention life table.
20 First, although Bounthavong and coworkers mentioned nursing labor costs for OPAT, these costs were not included in their list of base-case costs.
As a result of these limitations, we would recommend using the more conservative approach (the linear function derived from Equation 3 of Bauch et al. (2009) [ 12]) as the base case for cost-effectiveness analyses using a static model.
From society's perspective, a trial of ECV at this general cost for our base case is cost-effective when compared to a scheduled cesarean delivery for breech presentation provided the probability of successful ECV is greater than 32%.
Thus, the final base case unit cost assumptions for the present analysis were the following: Time on invasive MV: €1,850 per day (+33% versus Day off MV) Time on NIV: €1,750 per day (+26% versus Day off MV) Time off MV: €1,390 per day.
