To assess the cost effectiveness from a Canadian perspective of index patient germline BRCA testing and then, if positive, family members with subsequent risk-reducing surgery (RRS) in as yet unaffected mutation carriers compared with no testing and treatment of cancer when it develops.

A patient level simulation was developed comparing outcomes between two groups using Canadian data. Group 1: no mutation testing with treatment if cancer developed. Group 2: cascade testing (index patient BRCA tested and first-/second-degree relatives tested if index patient/first-degree relative is positive) with RRS in carriers. End points were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and budget impact.

There were 29,102 index patients: 2,786 ovarian cancer and 26,316 breast cancer (BC). Using the base-case assumption of 44 percent and 21 percent of women with a BRCA mutation receiving risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and risk-reducing mastectomy, respectively, testing was cost effective versus no testing and treatment on cancer development, with an ICER of CAD 14,942 (USD 10,555) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 127 and 104 fewer cases of ovarian and BC, respectively, and twenty-one fewer all-cause deaths. Testing remained cost effective versus no testing at the commonly accepted North American threshold of approximately CAD 100,000 (or USD 100,000) per QALY gained in all scenario analyses, and cost effectiveness improved as RRS uptake rates increased.

Prevention via testing and RRS is cost effective at current RRS uptake rates; however, optimization of uptake rates and RRS will increase cost effectiveness and can provide cost savings.

Patients with distributive shock who are unresponsive to traditional vasopressors are commonly considered to have severe distributive shock and are at high mortality risk. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of adding angiotensin II to the standard of care (SOC) for severe distributive shock in the US critical care setting from a US payer perspective.

Short-term mortality outcomes were based on 28-day survival rates from the ATHOS-3 study. Long-term outcomes were extrapolated to lifetime survival using individually estimated life expectancies for survivors. Resource use and adverse event costs were drawn from the published literature. Health outcomes evaluated were lives saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using utility estimates for the US adult population weighted for sepsis mortality. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty around results. We analyzed patients with severe distributive shock from the ATHOS-3 clinical trial.

The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC saved .08 lives at Day 28 compared to SOC alone. The cost per life saved was estimated to be $108,884. The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC was projected to result in a gain of .96 life-years and .66 QALYs. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,843 per QALY. The probability of angiotensin II being cost-effective at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY was 86 percent.

For treatment of severe distributive shock, angiotensin II is cost-effective at acceptable thresholds.