BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (ILST) and the NELSON study showed that lung cancer-specific mortality can be reduced by 20-24% using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk populations, due to an increase in early-stage diagnoses. RESEARCH QUESTION: How much lung cancer-related direct costs may be reduced using a LDCT screening programme based on the ILST protocol in a public healthcare system?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cost analysis of lung cancer screening (LCS) vs. usual care in the framework of the retail price of the Catalan public healthcare system. The LCS group included costs of screening (ILST protocol), treatment cost according to weighted average distribution of TNM staging in the NLST and NELSON trials, lung cancer detection rate (CDR) and smoking cessation intervention. The usual care group included treatment costs based on distribution of TNM staging registered in the Spanish index hospital. RESULTS: In the usual care group, treatment costs were €91,959. In the 5-year duration of the LCS programme, the average expected costs per subject were €1,342 (range €1,054-1,832 depending on malignancy in detected nodules) for screening and €32,431 for treatment, with an expected reduction of €952 based on an average CDR of 1.6%. The decrease in cost resulting from stage shift offsets 70.6% of the costs of the screening programme. INTERPRETATION: Baseline 5-year LCS costs are low according to the ILST protocol. In the Catalan public healthcare system, the expense reduction from the stage shift due to the LCS programme compensates a substantial part of its costs.

(1) Background: in epidemiological terms, it has been possible to calculate the savings in health resources and the reduction in health effects of COVID vaccines. From the point of view of economic evaluation, some studies have estimated its cost-effectiveness with the vaccination showing highly favorable results, which in some cases is cost-saving; (2) Methods: a cost-benefit analysis of the vaccination campaign in the North Metropolitan Health Region (Catalonia). An epidemiological model based on observational data and before and after comparison is used. The information on the doses used and the resources assigned (conventional hospital beds, ICU, number of tests) has been extracted from administrative data from the largest Primary Care provider in the region (Catalan Institute of Health). A distinction is made between the social perspective and the health system; (3) Results: the costs of vaccination are estimated at 137 million euros (€48.05/dose administered). This figure is significantly lower than the positive impacts of the vaccination campaign, which are estimated at 470 million euros (€164/dose administered). Of these, 18% corresponds to the reduction of ICU discharges, 16% to the reduction in conventional hospital discharges, 5% to the reduction in PCR tests and 1% to the reduction of RAT tests. Monetization of deaths and cases with sequelae avoided account for 53% and 5% of total savings, respectively. The benefit/cost ratio is estimated at 3.4 from a social perspective and 1.41 from a health system perspective. The social benefits of vaccination are estimated at €116.67 per dose of vaccine given (€19.93 from the point of view of the health system); (4) Conclusions: the mass vaccination campaign against COVID is cost-saving. From a social perspective, most of these savings come from the monetization of the reduction in mortality and cases with sequelae, although the intervention is equally widely cost-effective from the point of view of the health system thanks to the reduction in the use of resources. It is concluded that, from an economic perspective, the vaccination campaign has high social returns.

Aims: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the CardioMEMS HF system in a HF Clinic in Spain by evaluating the real-time remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressures, which has shown to reduce heart failure (HF) related hospitalizations and improve the quality of life for selected HF patients. Particularly, the study aimed to determine the value of CardioMEMS in Southern Europe, where healthcare costs are significantly lower and its effectiveness remains uncertain. Methods: This single-centre study enrolled all consecutive HF patients who had been implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor (CardioMEMS-HF system, Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA). The number of HF hospitalizations in the year before and the year after the sensor implantation was compared and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained based on a literature review of previous studies was calculated. Results: The rate of HF hospitalisations was significantly lower at 1 year compared with the year before CardioMEMS implantation (0.25 versus 1.10 events/patient-years, HR 0.22, p=0.001). At the end of first year, the usual management outperformed the CardioMEMS HF system, resulting in a net monetary value difference of 2,540€ per patient and a benefit-cost ratio of 0.38. However, by the end of the second year, the CardioMEMS system is estimated to reduce costs compared to usual management. Conclusions: Based on the results, we suggest that remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure with the CardioMEMS HF system represents a long-term cost-effective strategy in a healthcare setting in Southern Europe.

Background: The use of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters is growing due to their potential benefits. These devices can increase patient safety and satisfaction while reducing the use of resources. As a result, many hospitals are establishing vascular access specialist teams staffed by nurses who are trained in the insertion and maintenance of these catheters. Objective: Evaluate ex-ante whether the benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by a vascular access specialist team outweigh their costs. Methods: Cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the healthcare provider based on administrative data. The study estimates the reduction in resources used when replacing peripherally inserted central catheters, midline catheters and peripheral venous catheters with ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midlines, as well as the additional resources required for their use. Results: Each ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter replacing a peripherally inserted central catheter, results in a measurable resource reduction of approximately €31. When 3 peripheral venous catheters are replaced by an ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheter, the saving is €63. Similarly, each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing a midline, results in a reduction of €16, while each ultrasound-guided midline catheter replacing 3 peripheral venous catheters results in a reduction of €96. Conclusion: The benefits of replacing peripheral venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters by introducing a vascular access specialist team trained in the implantation of ultrasound-guided peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters, outweigh its cost mainly because of the decrease in hospital stay due to the lowered risk of healthcare-associated infections. These results motivate the implementation of the service, adding to previous experience suggesting that it is also preferable from the point of view of patient safety and satisfaction.

Introduction: Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention has been implemented in several countries. Previous literature has shown that its cost-effectiveness (and, under some specifications, cost-saving character) is dependent on the reduction in price due to generics, the time-horizon and its effectiveness. The intervention has never been studied in Catalonia, a territory with extensive implementation. Methods: Economic evaluation of the implementation of HIV pre-exposition prophylaxis using administrative data from Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) who receive the treatment (at the generic price). A deterministic compartmental model and a social perspective with a micro-costing approach over the time horizon 2022-2062 are used. A baseline 86% effectiveness of PrEP is assumed. Results: Daily oral PrEP is found to be cost-saving: discounted savings in costs are attained after 16 years, and after 40 years they reach 81 million euros. In terms of health indicators, 10,322 additional discounted QALYs are generated by the intervention. Results are sensitive to sexual behavioral patterns among MSM, the price of PrEP (reduced if offered on-demand), its effectiveness and the discount rate. Conclusions: The use and promotion of PrEP in Catalonia is predicted to result in substantial health and monetary benefits because of reductions in HIV infections. Short-term investments in the promotion of PrEP will result in important cost-savings in the long term.

Background: The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has cast into sharp relief the delicate balance between public health priorities and the economy, with businesses obliged to toe a line between employee health and continued production. In an effort to detect as many cases as possible, isolate contacts, cut transmission chains and limit the spread of the virus in the workplace, mass testing strategies have been implemented in both public health and industrial contexts to minimize the risk of disruption in activity. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of mass workplace testing strategy as carried out by a large automotive company in Catalonia in terms of health and healthcare resource savings. Methodology: Analysis of health costs and impacts based on the estimation of mortality and morbidity avoided because of screening and the resulting savings in healthcare costs. Results: The economic impact of the mass workplace testing strategies (using both PCR and RAT tests) was approximately €10.44 per test performed or €5,575.49 per positive detected. 38% of this figure corresponds to savings derived from better use of health resources (hospital beds, ICU beds and follow-up of infected cases), while the remaining 62% corresponds to improved health rates due to avoided morbidity and mortality. In scenarios with higher positivity rates and a greater impact of the infection on health and the use of health resources, these results could be up to ten times higher (€130.24 per test performed or €69,565.59 per positive detected). Conclusion: In the context of COVID-19, preventive actions carried out by the private sector to safeguard industrial production also have concomitant public benefits in the form of savings in healthcare costs. Thus, governmental bodies need to recognize the value of implementing such strategies in private settings and facilitate them through, for example, subsidies.

Aims: Multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinics have been shown to be an effective therapeutic model for reducing major amputations and mortality rates. The aim of this article is to assess the economic impact of the implementation of a multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinic in a hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Methods: Observational cost-benefit study of all subjects with diabetes admitted with the diagnosis of a major amputation due to diabetic foot from 2010 to 2020. Direct and indirect costs were compared before and after the introduction of the multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinic. Results: The individual cost per patient with diabetic foot was €14,768 before the implementation of the unit. After the implementation of the clinic, the expected cost was reduced to €5,985 due to a 40% reduction in the probability of hospitalization. Overall, the implementation of the clinic resulted in cost savings per patient valued at €8,783, of which, €7,165 are related to hospital benefits. Conclusion: The results of this analysis contributes to the evidence suggesting that multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinics are cost-effective, by demonstrating that they have a positive impact on patient health while also reducing the utilization of healthcare resources.

The epidemiological situation generated by COVID-19 has highlighted the importance of applying non-pharmacological measures. Among these, mass screening of the asymptomatic general population has been established as a priority strategy by carrying out diagnostic tests to limit the spread of the virus. In this article, we aim to evaluate the economic impact of mass COVID-19 screenings of an asymptomatic population through a Cost-Benefit Analysis based on the estimated total costs of mass screening versus health gains and associated health costs avoided. Excluding the value of monetized health, the Benefit-Cost ratio was estimated at approximately 0.45. However, if monetized health is included in the calculation, the ratio is close to 1.20. The monetization of health is the critical element that tips the scales in favour of the desirability of screening. Screenings with the highest return are those that maximize the percentage of positives detected.