Validity and reliability of four value frameworks for cancer drugs

6603

Background: Little is known about the validity and reliability of value assessment frameworks. Methods: Eight panelists used the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. We used Kendall’s W coefficient to measure convergent validity by cancer type among frameworks and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure framework inter-rater reliability across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences. Results: Kendall’s W for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs were 0.560 ( p= 0.010), 0.562 ( p= 0.010), and 0.920 ( p< 0.001), respectively. Pairwise and subdomain W are shown in the table. ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. Panelists generally agreed the frameworks were logically organized and easy to use. Conclusions: Convergent validity among the frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Inter-rater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of the frameworks will bring us closer to using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes. [Table: see text]

Network meta-analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer

e12071

Background: The NCCN recommends several adjuvant regimens for early stage breast cancer (ESBC) that have not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) making the optimal regimen unclear. Regimens of interest include dose dense doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (DDAC-T), doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by weekly paclitaxel (ACwkT), docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC), and docetaxel/cyclophosphamide (TC) x 4 cycles. This is the first network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of these regimens. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify RCTs that included the above regimens. To complete the network, doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (AC-T) every 3 wks, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC-D) every 3 wks were included. Primary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimated as odds ratios (OR). OR > 1 indicates better survival. Bayesian random effects model with non-informative priors was used. Results: 5 RCTs involving 12,579 females with mainly node positive, Her2- ESBC were analyzed. Although there were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS among these regimens, AC-D, ACwkT, DDAC-T, TAC, and TC demonstrated better survival outcomes compared to AC and AC-T (not shown). Survival outcomes among DDAC-T, ACwkT, TAC, and TC were comparable. DDAC-T survival outcomes were marginally better than the other regimens. Conclusions: DDAC-T, ACwkT, TC, and TAC were similar in efficacy. Final results with at least one additional RCT will be presented. Although NMA is not a substitute for direct comparison RCTs, it allows indirect comparisons to aid in decision making. Future results from ongoing RCTs will refine estimates of anthracycline vs non anthracycline efficacy and toxicity. [Table: see text]

Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models

BACKGROUND

Risk prediction models allow for the incorporation of individualized risk and clinical effectiveness information to identify patients for whom therapy is most appropriate and cost-effective. This approach has the potential to identify inefficient (or harmful) care in subgroups at different risks, even when the overall results appear favorable. Here, we explore the value of personalized risk information and the factors that influence it.

METHODS

Using an expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, which monetizes the value of customizing care, we developed a general approach to calculate individualized incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as a function of individual outcome risk. For a case study (tPA v. streptokinase to treat possible myocardial infarction), we used a simulation to explore how an EVIC is influenced by population outcome prevalence, model discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.

RESULTS

In our simulations, for well-calibrated models, which do not over- or underestimate predicted v. observed event risk, the EVIC ranged from $0 to $700 per person, with better discrimination (higher c-statistic values) yielding progressively higher EVIC values. For miscalibrated models, the EVIC ranged from -$600 to $600 in different simulated scenarios. The EVIC values decreased as discrimination improved from a c-statistic of 0.5 to 0.6, before becoming positive as the c-statistic reached values of ~0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Individualizing treatment decisions using risk may produce substantial value but also has the potential for net harm. Good model calibration ensures a non-negative EVIC. Improvements in discrimination generally increase the EVIC; however, when models are miscalibrated, greater discriminating power can paradoxically reduce the EVIC under some circumstances.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND

Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

OBJECTIVES

To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology.

METHODS

In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nutrition Supplementation for Malnourished Older Hospital Patients

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition, which is associated with increased medical complications in older hospitalized patients, can be attenuated by providing nutritional supplements.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of a specialized oral nutritional supplement (ONS) in malnourished older hospitalized patients.

METHODS

We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial (NOURISH Study). The target population was malnourished older hospitalized patients in the USA. We used 90-day (base case) and lifetime (sensitivity analysis) time horizons. The study compared a nutrient-dense ONS, containing high protein and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate to placebo. Outcomes included health-care costs, measured as the product of resource use and per unit cost; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (90-day time horizon); life-years (LYs) saved (lifetime time horizon); and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were inflated to 2015 US dollars.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, 90-day treatment group costs averaged US$22,506 per person, compared to US$22,133 for the control group. Treatment group patients gained 0.011 more QALYs than control group subjects, reflecting the treatment group's significantly greater probability of survival through 90 days' follow-up, as reported by the clinical trial. Hence, the 90-day follow-up period ICER was US$33,818/QALY. Assuming a lifetime time horizon, estimated treatment group life expectancy exceeded control group life expectancy by 0.71 years. Hence, the lifetime ICER was US$524/LY. The follow-up period for the trial was relatively short. Some of the patients were lost to follow-up, thus reducing collection of health-care utilization data during the clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the investigative ONS cost-effectively extends the lives of malnourished hospitalized patients.

Three Sets of Case Studies Suggest Logic and Consistency Challenges with Value Frameworks

OBJECTIVE

To assess the logic and consistency of three prominent value frameworks.

METHODS

We reviewed the value frameworks from three organizations: the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (DrugAbacus), the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For each framework, we developed case studies to explore the degree to which the frameworks have face validity in the sense that they are consistent with four important principles: value should be proportional to a therapy's benefit; components of value should matter to framework users (patients and payers); attribute weights should reflect user preferences; and value estimates used to inform therapy prices should reflect per-person benefit.

RESULTS

All three frameworks can aid decision making by elucidating factors not explicitly addressed by conventional evaluation techniques (in particular, cost-effectiveness analyses). Our case studies identified four challenges: 1) value is not always proportional to benefit; 2) value reflects factors that may not be relevant to framework users (patients or payers); 3) attribute weights do not necessarily reflect user preferences or relate to value in ways that are transparent; and 4) value does not reflect per-person benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the value frameworks we reviewed capture value in a way that is important to various audiences, they are not always logical or consistent. Because these frameworks may have a growing influence on therapy access, it is imperative that analytic challenges be further explored.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies Reporting Cost-per-DALY Averted

Introduction

Calculating the cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted associated with interventions is an increasing popular means of assessing the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve population health. However, there has been no systematic attempt to characterize the literature and its evolution.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies reporting cost-per-DALY averted from 2000 through 2015. We developed the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, a repository of English-language cost-per-DALY averted studies indexed in PubMed. To identify candidate studies, we searched PubMed for articles with titles or abstracts containing the phrases “disability-adjusted” or “DALY”. Two reviewers with training in health economics independently reviewed each article selected in our abstract review, gathering information using a standardized data collection form. We summarized descriptive characteristics on study methodology: e.g., intervention type, country of study, study funder, study perspective, along with methodological and reporting practices over two time periods: 2000–2009 and 2010–2015. We analyzed the types of costs included in analyses, the study quality on a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high), and examined the correlation between diseases researched and the burden of disease in different world regions.

Results

We identified 479 cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2000 through 2015. Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa comprised the largest portion of published studies. The disease areas most commonly studied were communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional disorders (67%), followed by non-communicable diseases (28%). A high proportion of studies evaluated primary prevention strategies (59%). Pharmaceutical interventions were commonly assessed (32%) followed by immunizations (28%). Adherence to good practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analysis varied considerably. Studies mainly included formal healthcare sector costs. A large number of the studies in Sub-Saharan Africa addressed high-burden conditions such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases and malaria, and diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, meningitis, and other common infectious diseases.

Conclusion

The Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reveals a growing and diverse field of cost-per-DALY averted studies. However, study methods and reporting practices have varied substantially.

Medicare is scrutinizing evidence more tightly for national coverage determinations

We examined Medicare national coverage determinations for medical interventions to determine whether or not they have become more restrictive over time. National coverage determinations address whether particular big-ticket medical items, services, treatment procedures, and technologies can be paid for under Medicare. We found that after we adjusted for the strength of evidence and other factors known to influence the determinations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the evidentiary bar for coverage has risen. More recent coverage determinations (from mid-March 2008 through August 2012) were twenty times less likely to be positive than earlier coverage determinations (from February 1999 through January 2002). Furthermore, coverage during the study period was increasingly and positively associated both with the degree of consistency of favorable findings in the CMS reviewed clinical evidence and with recommendations made in clinical guidelines. Coverage policy is an important payer tool for promoting the appropriate use of medical interventions, but CMS's rising evidence standards also raise questions about patients' access to new technologies and about hurdles for the pharmaceutical and device industries as they attempt to bring innovations to the market.

The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh

Background

Economic evaluation has been implemented to inform policy in many areas, including coverage decisions, technology pricing, and the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to evidence-based policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that include limited stakeholder awareness, resources and data availability, as well as the lack of capacity to conduct country-specific economic evaluations. This study aims to survey health policy experts’ opinions on barriers to use of cost-effectiveness data in these settings and to obtain their advice on how to make a new cost-per-DALY database being developed by Tufts Medical Center more relevant to LMICs. It also identifies the factors influencing transferability.

Methods

In-depth interviews were conducted with 32 participants, including policymakers, technical advisors, and researchers in Health Ministries, universities and non-governmental organisations in Bangladesh, India (New Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and Vietnam.

Results

The survey revealed that, in all settings, the use of cost-effectiveness information in policy development is lacking, owing to limited knowledge among policymakers and inadequate human resources with health economics expertise in the government sector. Furthermore, researchers in universities do not have close connections with health authorities. In India and Vietnam, the demand for evidence to inform coverage decisions tends to increase as the countries are moving towards universal health coverage. The informants in all countries argue that cost-effectiveness data are useful for decision-makers; however, most of them do not perform data searches by themselves but rely on the information provided by the technical advisor counterparts. Most interviewees were familiar with using evidence from other countries and were also aware of the influences of contextual elements as a limitation of transferability. Finally, strategies to promote the newly developed database include training on basic economic evaluation for policymakers and researchers, and effective communication programs, with support from reputable global agencies.

Conclusions

Although cost-effectiveness information is recognised as essential in resource allocation, there are several impediments in the generation and use of such evidence to inform priority setting in LMICs. As such, the Cost-per-DALY database should be well-designed and introduced with appropriate promotion strategies so that it will be helpful in real-world policymaking.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0156-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing the Value of Treatment to Address Various Symptoms Associated with Multiple Sclerosis: Results from a Contingent Valuation Study

BACKGROUND

Although it is well recognized that people with multiple sclerosis (MS) may experience impairments in addition to limited mobility, there has been little effort to study their relative importance to patients with the condition. The objective of this study was to assess patient preferences for addressing various MS symptoms.

METHODS

This study was conducted at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. We developed a national online survey of MS patients and neurologists to estimate the value each group places on treating specific MS symptoms. Each respondent was presented with two randomly selected scenarios with different symptoms and treatments. MS patients were asked about their own preferences, whereas neurologists were asked to consider what a patient of theirs would do or think in each scenario. We used a bidding game approach to elicit respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for the treatments.

RESULTS

To treat mobility alone, WTP for MS patients averaged US$410-US$520 per month, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, MS patients would pay most to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$525/month) or mobility and cognition (US$514/month), somewhat less to treat mobility and eyesight (US$445/month), and least to treat mobility and fatigue (US$371/month). Patient WTP values increased with income and education. Neurologists believed their patients would be willing to pay US$216-US$249 per month to treat mobility alone, depending on the scenario. For paired symptoms, neurologists believed patients would pay most to treat mobility and fatigue (US$263/month) and least to treat mobility and upper limb function (US$177/month).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest MS patients may value one outcome (e.g., improved arm and hand coordination) over another (e.g., less fatigue). Further, MS patients and neurologists may rank the importance of treating various symptoms differently. Given this potential mismatch, it is crucial for MS patients and their clinicians to discuss treatment priorities that take into account patient preferences.

Cost-Effectiveness of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Elderly Patients with Multiple Myeloma using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Database

In the past decade, the number of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants (Auto HSCT) for older patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has increased dramatically, as has the cost of transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of this modality in patients over age 65 is unclear. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to create a propensity-score matched sample of patients over age 65 between 2000 and 2007, we compared the survival and cost for those who received Auto HSCT to those who did not undergo transplantation but survived at least 6 months after diagnosis, and we calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Two hundred seventy patients underwent transplantation. Median overall survival from diagnosis in those who underwent transplantation was significantly longer than in patients who did not (58 months versus 37 months, P < .001). For patients living longer than 2 years, the median monthly cost during the first year was significantly different, but the middle and last year of life costs were similar. The median cost of the first 100 days after transplantation was $60,000 (range, $37,000 to $85,000). The resultant ICER was $72,852 per life-year gained. Survival after transplantation was comparable to that in those who underwent transplantation patients under 65 years and significantly longer than older patients who did not undergo transplantation. With an ICER less than $100,000/life-year gained, Auto HSCT is cost-effective when compared with nontransplantation care in the era of novel agents and should be considered, where clinically indicated, for patients over the age of 65.

Unintended benefits: the potential economic impact of addressing risk factors to prevent Alzheimer's disease

Certain chronic conditions appear to be modifiable risk factors of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. To understand the potential health and economic impacts of addressing those risk factors, we used data on a Medicare cohort to simulate four scenarios: a 10 percent reduction in the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, respectively, and a 10 percent reduction in body mass index among beneficiaries who were overweight or obese. Our simulation demonstrated that reducing the prevalence of these conditions may yield "unintended benefits" by lowering the risk, delaying the onset, reducing the duration, and lowering the costs of dementia. More research is needed to clarify the exact relationship between various other chronic diseases and dementia. However, our findings highlight potential health gains and savings opportunities stemming from the better management of other conditions associated with dementia.

The real world effectiveness of hematopoietic transplant among elderly individuals with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is the preferred treatment for young patients with multiple myeloma (MM), but for older adults there is limited evidence on its effectiveness from clinical trials.

METHODS

We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to identify individuals age 66 years and older with multiple myeloma (MM) who were diagnosed between 2000 and 2007. We used traditional multivariable analysis, propensity score-based analysis, coarsened exact matching, and an instrumental variable analysis to compare survival for individuals who did or did not receive an hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Survival was measured by Cox proportional hazard models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Patients with MM receiving an HSCT were more likely to be white, married, younger, and have fewer comorbidities. Results from all analytic techniques consistently showed that HSCT statistically significantly improved survival, with hazard ratios (HRs) ranging from 0.531 to 0.608 (traditional multivariable analysis: HR = 0.582, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.69; propensity score analysis: HR = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.72; coarsened exact matching: HR = 0.608, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.76; instrumental variable analysis: HR = 0.531, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.78, all P values ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall survival has increased among patients with MM receiving HSCT. This finding was consistent across statistical methods, indicating robustness of our findings.

Value of innovation in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses

We analyzed cost-effectiveness studies related to hematologic malignancies from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), focusing on studies of innovative therapies. Studies that met inclusion criteria were categorized by 4 cancer types (chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma) and 9 treatment agents (interferon-α, alemtuzumab, bendamustine, bortezomib, dasatinib, imatinib, lenalidomide, rituximab alone or in combination, and thalidomide). We examined study characteristics and stratified cost-effectiveness ratios by type of cancer, treatment, funder, and year of study publication. Twenty-nine studies published in the years 1996-2012 (including 44 cost-effectiveness ratios) met inclusion criteria, 22 (76%) of which were industry funded. Most ratios fell below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) (73%) and $100,000/QALY (86%). Industry-funded studies (n = 22) reported a lower median ratio ($26,000/QALY) than others (n = 7; $33,000/QALY), although the difference was not statistically significant. Published data suggest that innovative treatments for hematologic malignancies may provide reasonable value for money.

Toxicity and clinical outcomes in patients with HIV on zidovudine and tenofovir based regimens: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions are a major concern with zidovudine/stavudine treatment regimens. The less toxic tenofovir regimen is an alternative, but is seldom considered due to the higher costs. This study compared adverse drug reactions and other clinical outcomes resulting from the use of these two treatment regimens in India.

METHODS

Baseline, clinical characteristics and follow-up outcomes were collected by chart reviews of HIV-positive adults and compared using univariate/multivariate analysis, with and without propensity score adjustments.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 129 and 92 patients on zidovudine (with lamivudine and nevirapine) and tenofovir (with emtricitabine and efavirenz) regimens, respectively. Compared to patients receiving the zidovudine regimen, patients receiving the tenofovir regimen had fewer adverse drug reactions (47%, 61/129 vs 11%, 10/92; p<0.01), requiring fewer regimen changes (36%, 47/129 vs 3%, 3/92; p0.01). With the propensity score, the zidovudine regimen had 8 times more adverse drug reactions (p<0.01). Opportunistic infections were similar between regimens without propensity score, while the zidovudine regimen had 1.2 times (p=0.63) more opportunistic infections with propensity score. Patients on the tenofovir regimen gained more weight. Increase in CD4 levels and treatment adherence (>95%) was similar across regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on a tenofovir regimen have better clinical outcomes and improved general health than patients on the zidovudine regimen.

Cost estimation of first-line antiretroviral therapy with zidovudine/stavudine as the nucleoside backbone in India: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

In India, a zidovudine-based regimen is preferred as the first-line drug treatment for HIV, despite high rates of drug toxicity. This study estimates the treatment costs for HIV.

METHODS

Eligible patients were enrolled from Antiretroviral Therapy Center, Christian Medical College, India. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, medical and nonmedical expenditure, and lost income were collected.

RESULTS

Of 41 patients enrolled and followed for 6 months, HIV treatment toxicity and opportunistic infections were reported by 12 (29%) and 13 (31.7%) patients, respectively. The median total costs, direct costs, and out-of-pocket expenditure were Indian rupees (INR) 9418 (US$181), 8727 (US$168), and 7157 (US$138), respectively. Diagnostic tests accounted for 58% of the expenses. HIV treatment accounted for 34% of the median income earned INR 21 000 (US$404). Expenditure for treatment with toxicity was 44% higher than without toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Current treatment is associated with toxicity, increasing treatment costs and imposing a significant economic burden.

Cost-utility analyses in diabetes: a systematic review and implications from real-world evidence

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of diabetes interventions, identify high-value diabetes services, and estimate potential gains from increasing their utilization.

METHODS

The study consisted of two steps. First, we reviewed cost-utility analyses (CUAs) related to diabetes published through the end of 2012, using the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org). We used logistic regression to examine factors independently associated with favorable cost-effective ratios. Second, we used the Humedica electronic medical records to estimate potential savings and health benefits gained by shifting patients currently receiving low-value services to high-value alternatives.

RESULTS

We identified 196 diabetes CUAs, of which 55% examined pharmaceuticals. Most (70%) diabetes CUAs focused on treatment rather than prevention. Most used a health care payer perspective and were industry-sponsored. Of the 497 published cost-utility ratios, 82% examined an intervention recommended by diabetes guidelines. Approximately 73% of the interventions were cost-saving or below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Logistic regression analysis showed that higher-quality CUAs, CUAs conducted from the US perspective, surgical interventions, and guideline-recommended interventions were more likely to report favorable ratios. Of the 7907 eligible patients with diabetes in our sample, up to 7117 could in principle be shifted to cost-saving treatments, reducing costs by $12.5 million and gaining more than 1938 quality-adjusted life-years over a lifetime.

CONCLUSIONS

Most diabetes interventions evaluated by CUAs are recommended by practice guidelines and may provide good value for money. Our results indicate that patients with diabetes and the health care system could potentially benefit from shifting to the greater use of high-value services.