The costs of the treatments did not have great influence on the differences between the cost-effectiveness ratios.
Explicitly, we investigated the most important factors in the analyses and those parameters primarily responsible for the large differences between the cost-effectiveness estimates of the various models.
When the efficacy of splenectomy varied by 50% below the base case analysis, the differences between the cost-effectiveness ratios of sequences 1 and 2 and between sequences 1 and 3 increased from USD 1,158 to USD 3,707 and from USD 4,612 to USD 12,503, respectively.
When the rituximab efficacy varied by 50% below the base case analysis, the differences between the cost-effectiveness ratios of sequences 1 and 2 and between sequences 1 and 3 decreased from USD 1,158 to USD 406 and from USD 4,612 to USD 1,079, respectively, but the difference did not fall below 0.> -wrap-foot> plateletelet.
The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.
However, statistical testing found that the observed difference between the cost-effectiveness of methadone and buprenorphine treatments was not statistically significant.
However, the small difference between the cost-effectiveness ratios with and without indirect costs is explained by the dominant role of the vaccine costs.
When the romiplostim dose was set as two vials per dose, the difference between the cost-effectiveness ratios of sequences 1 and 3 increased from USD 4,612 to USD 10,603.
The relationship is considered the same between sequences 1 and 3; therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted focusing on the differences between these cost-effectiveness ratios.
Because of differences in costs of the drugs or differences in the treatment costs of clinical events, the cost effectiveness of drugs can differ between countries.
