ライフサイエンスコーパス: cost-effectiveness ratio

1 g, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio).

2 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

3 e presented in terms of survival, costs, and cost-effectiveness ratio.

4 , and patient age substantially affected the cost-effectiveness ratio.

5 most significant determinant of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

6 ectiveness was expressed via the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

7 st-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

8 st effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

9 QALYs were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

10 d lifetime costs (2010 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

11 ity-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

12 ife-years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

13 cer cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

14 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

15 rt failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

16 ve than ET with an echinocandin (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $111,084 per additional surviv

17 cardiac events (5% versus 10%; P<0.010) and cost-effectiveness ratio (119.98+/-250.92 versus 218.12+

18 ase survival but at higher cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $197,906/quality-adjusted lif

19 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2010 U.S. dollars per quality

20 N model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-year gained).

21 ctive in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $70831-$136332).

22 ctive in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $92446).

23 ed life-years, we constructed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and performed a net monetary be

24 eduction to life years saved, and derive the cost-effectiveness ratio and the return on investment.

25 and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and examined the number of wom

26 Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed to treat fo

27 ty-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB).

28 ty-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB).

29 babilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the willingness-to-pay thr

30 The main outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as measured by cost per quality

31 effectiveness results are conservative, with cost-effectiveness ratios assessed over a 20-y time hori

32 cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatme

33 We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on cumulative costs over

34 Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adju

35 o be highly cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between about 2,000 and 5,000

36 xamined study characteristics and stratified cost-effectiveness ratios by type of cancer, treatment,

37 on's cost per ETU admission averted (average cost-effectiveness ratio) by season (wet and dry), count

38 We extracted cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and appraised economic

39 of 10-65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with current intervent

40 is equates to a 75% reduction in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with the $802 700 per

41 Using data from PROTECT AF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin and dab

42 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin were $5

43 This cost-effectiveness ratio compares favorably to that of o

44 g HCV treatment, and we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per QALY gained, in 2012

45 ision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted lif

46 The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (Deltacosts/DeltaQALY) was appr

47 son costs (2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (dollars per years of life sav

48 Third, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates the additional cost r

49 With time limited to <40 years, the cost-effectiveness ratio exceeded $50,000/QALY.

50 opensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-a

51 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollar per quali

52 The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to 6 cycles arm

53 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CTA compared with SPECT was

54 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin based on screen

55 Compared with warfarin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LAA occlusion was $41 565.

56 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHAS compared with Current

57 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared with MT was $1

58 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was > $550,000

59 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR was thus estimated at

60 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CVR-based strategy comp

61 The risk-adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the liberal versus selectiv

62 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the strategy of computerize

63 ar clinical outcomes, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for (1) Current Pace of detect

64 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for 60 Framingham-based, non-l

65 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CT alone and AVS alone wer

66 atment only for F3 patients; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for providing surgery or ILI o

67 tments for patients with PA, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening patients with CT

68 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for surgery in all F0-F3 patie

69 osts were then used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the competing strategies.

70 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the same screening interva

71 We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a health system perspectiv

72 Of 2128 cost-effectiveness ratios from 887 publications, only 9

73 lower QALYs) or had unattractive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (>$300,000/QALY) compared with

74 ative costs, graft survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER - cost per additional yea

75 We used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = difference in lifetime

76 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between test and no-test

77 We estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing costs and bene

78 ears (QALYs) and calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing treating IDUs,

79 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HZ vaccine versus no

80 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the MR imaging IPH s

81 itional per person cost of $100 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,490/year of life s

82 erage rates of 68% would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.50 ($US 2010) per

83 distribution strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $323 per QALY, and na

84 lts treated with statins, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,000/QALY compared

85 rth-cohort screening produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,700 per quality-a

86 or surveillance, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,869/QALY gained fo

87 Adaptive VL had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4100/year of life sa

88 d with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45017 per QALY for t

89 ing and treatment for HBV has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $540 per DALY averted

90 tal cost of $825.67 producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7.28 per DALY averte

91 tal costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained.

92 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 3 cryptococcal induct

93 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ACEI+BB+AldA versus A

94 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CLT versus LR ranged

95 life expectancy (QALE), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different treatment i

96 sted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different treatment o

97 ages, the best strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than $50,000 per

98 s, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound10 726 per QALY.

99 st effective strategy and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound9,204 per additi

100 te the costs, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SiDRP relative to FP-

101 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vaccinating boys was

102 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Xpert scale-up ($169

103 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio

104 Using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of $100,000 pe

105 dian $2,725 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $255,970 per QALY ga

106 considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 000/quality-ad

107 The D.90, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was &OV0556;7192 per ave

108 An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for a 10-

109 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in 2014 U

110 tion costs were measured and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived.

111 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was euro6840.75 (95% CI

112 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented as costs i

113 The primary incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the incremental cost

114 ality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net value-based pri

115 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as euros per QA

116 Our outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with $A50,000 or less c

117 y-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

118 d life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

119 ity-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

120 (LYG), costs (in 2011 euros) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

121 ears (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

122 difference per life-year gained [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)].

123 Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief inte

124 his study sought to quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of angiotensin-converti

125 y-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of policy 1 versus poli

126 against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing additional cost

127 -adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

128 by coronary CT angiography only (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $17516).

129 Cost per DFD was $188 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $188; 95% confidence i

130 58 versus US$51 per person year; incremental cost effectiveness ratio(ICER) US$889,267 per life year

131 trial's outcomes in a series of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

132 We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between current practi

133 (a proxy for costs) to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing PK with no i

134 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for high-dose versus s

135 In an incremental analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening plus sur

136 We evaluated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the use of necitum

137 s (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative

138 Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2013 Australian dol

139 Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2015 U.S. dollars p

140 sted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality

141 djusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the four prevention

142 Twenty-two studies assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the programs.

143 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per diagnosis of AHI w

144 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free l

145 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were at least US$970 0

146 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for ea

147 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for so

148 anges in fatigue and disability; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed.

149 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined.

150 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for mea

151 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

152 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with Monte Carlo simul

153 both discounted at 3% per year), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and clinical outcomes

154 tions, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-year and life

155 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), using discounted cost

156 expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

157 analysis model to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

158 d life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

159 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

160 g the Consumer Price Index), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

161 ars) were used to calculate mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

162 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in USD per year of lif

163 ance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] pound45,200 [range pou

164 At $5 per dose, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in low-, lower-middle-, and upp

165 tal perspective and estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in U.S. dollars per quality-adj

166 ccination is associated with less attractive cost-effectiveness ratios in this population than those

167 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $50 000 per QALY a

168 The cost-effectiveness ratio increased with the frequency of

169 t-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to changes in adhe

170 ear (QALY), were calculated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $100,000/QALY consid

171 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than the per capita gross

172 ximately $1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.

173 ase and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 70.9% of boot

174 ity-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$10 000 per life-year or qual

175 The marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (mCER) of screening decreases a

176 omic evaluation to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured in cost per quality-

177 blished in the years 1996-2012 (including 44 cost-effectiveness ratios) met inclusion criteria, 22 (7

178 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net present value of lifetime

179 litaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY.

180 NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, and first-line

181 NSS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,152,529 per QALY relative

182 of 0.350 x 10(9) cells/L has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1200 per year of life saved

183 prevention/treatment yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1331 per DALY averted.

184 l, -0.001 to 0.029) QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $15.7 thousand (K) per QALY.

185 cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17 016 relative to oral van

186 argeted therapies resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $189,000 per quality-adjuste

187 revented 6.6 million DALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2241 per DALY averted, when

188 $9890 per woman, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2700/year of life saved, an

189 llion over 10 years, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2720 and $1260 per year of

190 djusted life-years), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34 950/quality-adjusted lif

191 s perspective, and results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35663 (95% CI, cost savings

192 n testing was preferred, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per life-year gained

193 650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared wi

194 sted life-years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $363 per disability-adjusted

195 ental QALYs would be 0.5 million, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $3871/QALY.

196 ion allopurinol therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $39 400 per quality-adjusted

197 l total cost of $89 per athlete and yields a cost-effectiveness ratio of $42 900 per life-year saved

198 %) and mortality rate by 64% (46%-78%), at a cost-effectiveness ratio of $45 300 per QALY gained ($27

199 ut telemedicine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,320 per additional quali

200 ife-years (DALY) per annum at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $469 per DALY averted when c

201 00 and $633,900, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $473,400/quality-adjusted li

202 ectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,265 with a wide 95% CI f

203 al cost of $1365 per patient and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $52,554/quality-adjusted-lif

204 tive in both populations with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,255 (HCC) and $36,583 (D

205 eened and costs $199 per athlete, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $76 100 per life-year saved

206 cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY.

207 ive to barbiturate coma, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,565/quality-adjusted life

208 cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QALY.

209 needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.

210 as $996 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9727 per life-year gained.

211 versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY.

212 as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY.

213 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (18)F-FET PET/MR imaging com

214 ,285.77, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of - pound1,542.16/quality-adju

215 55.87 to 492.87) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately pound62,500.

216 The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to PCI was $30

217 ted life-years (QALY) and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CaD $52,000/QALY.

218 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF was

219 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF.

220 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with tradition

221 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECHO was $10,351 per QALY co

222 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enoxaparin compared with UFH

223 ned use of MRI and PET showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro2,948 (euro1 ~ U.S.$1.3)

224 for the baseline scenario and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro4,105 per life-year gain

225 quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of LAA occlusion in relation to

226 he societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of medical treatment, trabecule

227 with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2

228 m perspective, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of OOKP treatment relative to n

229 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCI was $36 000 per quality-

230 UI) 208-232] per vaccine, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound20 000 per quality-adju

231 is pound453; findings suggest an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound2157 per additional per

232 to be cost-effective with a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound22 000 per QALY and a p

233 own to be cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound24 000.

234 nd501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5,786 (US$8,521) per QA

235 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $700,500 per qu

236 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of qHPV vaccination compared to

237 arcinoma cases prevented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of quality-adjusted life years

238 840 (US$55 150), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S$17 000/QALY (US$13 820/QAL

239 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening with 3-month LFTs,

240 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening with 6-month LFTs

241 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was pound43 6

242 At the current price, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of statin plus PCSK9i therapy w

243 iveness analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of telemedicine in the ICU, com

244 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the continuous-flow device w

245 Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the full-adherence versus th

246 For the 5-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $14,859/quality-adjusted

247 ts of rotavirus and benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vaccination.

248 lyses, multistage strategies had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,000/QALY and $83,000/QA

249 5-, 2-, and 1-year intervals had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $9000, $11,000, $19,000, an

250 ication was cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $A2748 and $A8475 per quali

251 To evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizumab therapy

252 modeled for 20 or 40 pack-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CaD $62,000 and CaD $43,000

253 ariations of model assumptions; however, the cost-effectiveness ratios of dose escalation with allopu

254 ed a gain in QALYs, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro33072 (US $35475) per Q

255 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with P

256 seline vision-impairing DME, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab therapy compare

257 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the strategies for two high

258 djusted life-years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of various HIV prevention stra

259 ought included a combination of "incremental cost-effectiveness ratio" OR "economic evaluation" OR "c

260 tatus, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year

261 t find small health gains and less favorable cost-effectiveness ratios published.

262 rformed with stress testing, its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from $26,200/QALY in men

263 Across countries, cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$792 (482-1,785)

264 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and st

265 ith ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value b

266 t vector control applications per year has a cost-effectiveness ratio that will probably meet WHO's s

267 quit rate by 22.5% improves the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to CaD $24,000/QALY.

268 in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below the threshold

269 hen S3 was compared with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18,231/quality-adjusted li

270 The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18239 (95% CI, dominant to

271 The discounted lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $3,071 per quality-adjusted

272 The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (r

273 The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $359,000 per quality-adjust

274 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY.

275 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY.

276 $47,879-$48,073) (P < .001); the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $782,598 per additional qua

277 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $8289 per QALY for trabecul

278 (P = .04) and the mean base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $85 634/QALY.

279 The 95% credible interval for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was cost-saving to $31,460 per

280 ore costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per qual

281 RT as very cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the annual per ca

282 as highly cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the World Bank cl

283 Across a range of CTA costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not materially influenced b

284 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound14 284 for initial len

285 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound5374 per QALY gain.

286 th the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall

287 a comparison of S3 with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $205,500, $124,796, and $

288 that yielded $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY cost-effectiveness ratios were $22,200 and $42,400, resp

289 Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained a

290 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated if sufficient

291 -adjusted life years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

292 d life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

293 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

294 Over a 40 year time horizon, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were pound22 201 (95% credible

295 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then calculated for each

296 red life years saved but not the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-eff

297 imate incremental unit costs, and calculated cost-effectiveness ratios with a computer model which pr

298 e included studies reported highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratios, with the majority showing dom

299 With school-age vaccination, the cost-effectiveness ratio would be $22,137/QALY.

300 of that observed in JUPITER, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would increase to $50,871 per Q