BACKGROUND: Chronic @entity66 is a common disorder in the United States. The manifestations of chronic @entity66 include @entity3179 and related sequelae that are frequent contributors to the morbidity and high costs associated with the disease. The interventional treatment options for chronic @entity66 have expanded greatly in recent years and include various surgical and vein ablation techniques. @entity5324 injectable foam (also known as @entity5324 endovenous microfoam 1%), a chemical ablation agent, is the most recent entrant to the market. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the expected @entity1 -level total treatment costs and health plan-level budgetary impact of @entity5324 injectable foam compared with the currently available interventional treatment options from a third-party US payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was designed to compare the costs of @entity5324 injectable foam with other interventional treatments (ie, laser ablation, radiofrequency ablation, surgery, and multimodality treatment). The model included drug acquisition, medical procedure, administration, additional treatment, and disease progression costs. The treatment patterns and rates of additional treatment were incorporated from a recent retrospective claims analysis for established treatment modalities and from the clinical trials for @entity5324 injectable foam. The model estimates the 1-year total estimated costs and the health plan budget impact assuming an 8-week treatment time frame. RESULTS: The total expected 8-week treatment costs were  2165 for @entity5324 injectable foam,  1827 for endovenous laser ablation,  2106 for radiofrequency ablation,  2374 for surgery, and  2844 for multimodality treatment. The initial treatment costs were higher for surgery and multimodality treatment compared with @entity5324 injectable foam and were lower for endovenous laser ablation and radiofrequency ablation treatments. @entity5324 injectable foam is projected to have a relatively small budget impact ( 0.01 per member per month) at an initial 5% market share. CONCLUSION: @entity5324 injectable foam offers an alternative to other interventional options for the treatment of varicose veins and is projected to have a relatively small budget impact. From a health plan perspective, this drug is likely to have a relatively low budget impact as it becomes more widely used.

Evaluating the Expected Costs and Budget Impact of Interventional Therapies for the Treatment of Chronic XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patient'] @entity5324 :: ('MESH:C008976', 'Chemical') :: ['polidocanol', 'Polidocanol'] @entity66 :: ('MESH:D004194', 'Disease') :: ['venous disease'] @entity3179 :: ('MESH:D014647', 'Disease') :: ['varicosities']
@entity66 :: (MESH:D004194,Disease) :: ['Venous Disease']
