A Health Opportunity Cost Threshold for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

Anticoagulant Therapy for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH.

DESIGN

Cohort-state transition decision analytic model.

DATA SOURCES

Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH.

TARGET POPULATION

Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled.

CONCLUSION

The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Informing a cost-effectiveness threshold for Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 aims to reform health care across the Kingdom, with health technology assessment being adopted as one tool promising to improve the efficiency with which resources are used. An understanding of the opportunity costs of reimbursement decisions is key to fulfilling this promise and can be used to inform a cost-effectiveness threshold. This paper is the first to provide a range of estimates of this using existing evidence extrapolated to the context of Saudi Arabia.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We use four approaches to estimate the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare system; drawing from existing evidence provided by a cross-country analysis, two alternative estimates from the UK context, and based on extrapolating a UK estimate using evidence on the income elasticity of the value of health. Consequences of estimation error are explored.

RESULTS

Based on the four approaches, we find a range of SAR 42,046 per QALY gained (48% of GDP per capita) to SAR 215,120 per QALY gained (246% of GDP per capita). Calculated potential central estimates from the average of estimated health gains based on each source gives a range of SAR 50,000-75,000. The results are in line with estimates from the emerging literature from across the world.

CONCLUSION

A cost-effectiveness threshold reflecting health opportunity costs can aid decision-making. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold based on the range SAR 50,000 to 75,000 per QALY gained would ensure that resource allocation decisions in healthcare can in be informed in a way that accounts for health opportunity costs.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation is that it is not based on a within-country study for Saudi Arabia, which represents a promising line of future work.

The application, value, and impact of outcomes research in animal health and veterinary medicine

Outcomes research is a relatively recent field of study in animal health and veterinary medicine despite being well-established in human medicine. As the field of animal health is broad-ranging in terms of animal species, objectives, research methodologies, design, analysis, values, and outcomes, there is inherent versatility in the application and impact of the discipline of outcomes research to a variety of stakeholders. The major themes of outcomes relevant to the animal health industry have been distilled down to include, but are not limited to, health, production, economics, and marketing. An outcomes research approach considers an element of value along with an outcome of interest, setting it apart from traditional research approaches. Elements of value are determined by the stakeholders' use of products and/or services that meet or exceed functional, emotional, life-changing, and/or societal needs. Stakeholder perception of value depends on many factors such as the purpose of the animal (e.g., companion vs. food production) and the stakeholder's role (e.g., veterinarian, client, pet-owner, producer, consumer, government official, industry representative, policy holder). Key areas of application of outcomes research principles include comparative medicine, veterinary product development, and post-licensure evaluation of veterinary pharmaceuticals and/or biologics. Topics currently trending in human healthcare outcomes research, such as drug pricing, precision medicine, or the use of real-world evidence, offer novel and interesting perspectives for addressing themes common to the animal health sector. An approach that evaluates the benefits of practices and interventions to veterinary patients and society while maximizing outcomes is paramount to combating many current and future scientific challenges where feeding the world, caring for our aging companion animals, and implementing novel technologies in companion animal medicine and in production animal agriculture are at the forefront of our industry goals.

Estimated Monetary Value of Future Research Clarifying Uncertainties Around the Optimal Adult Hearing Screening Schedule

Importance

Adult hearing screening is not routinely performed, and most individuals with hearing loss (HL) have never had their hearing tested as adults.

Objective

To project the monetary value of future research clarifying uncertainties around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a validated decision model of HL (DeciBHAL-US: Decision model of the Burden of Hearing loss Across the Lifespan) was used to simulate current detection and treatment of HL vs hearing screening schedules. Key model inputs included HL incidence (0.06%-10.42%/y), hearing aid uptake (0.54%-8.14%/y), screening effectiveness (1.62 × hearing aid uptake), utility benefits of hearing aids (+0.11), and hearing aid device costs ($3690). Distributions to model parameters for probabilistic uncertainty analysis were assigned. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) using a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated. The EVPI and EVPPI estimate the upper bound of the dollar value of future research. This study was based on 40-year-old persons over their remaining lifetimes in a US primary care setting.

Exposures

Screening schedules beginning at ages 45, 55, 65, and 75 years, and frequencies of every 1 or 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were QALYs and costs (2020 US dollars) from a health system perspective.

Results

The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for yearly screening beginning at ages 55 to 75 years ranged from $39 200 to $80 200/QALY. Yearly screening beginning at age 55 years was the optimal screening schedule in 38% of probabilistic uncertainty analysis simulations. The population EVPI, or value of reducing all uncertainty, was $8.2 to $12.6 billion varying with willingness to pay and the EVPPI, or value of reducing all screening effectiveness uncertainty, was $2.4 billion.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation of US adult hearing screening, large uncertainty around the optimal adult hearing screening schedule was identified. Future research on hearing screening has a high potential value so is likely justified.

The Potential Value-Based Price of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Genomic Blood Test to Complement Current Single Cancer Screening in the USA

BACKGROUND

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing could increase detection of cancer at early stages, when survival outcomes are better and treatment costs are lower, but is expected to increase screening costs. This study modeled an MCED test for 19 solid cancers in a US population and estimated the potential value-based price (the maximum price to meet a given willingness to pay) of the MCED test plus current single cancer screening (usual care) compared to usual care alone from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

A hybrid cohort-level state-transition and decision-tree model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of annual MCED testing between age 50 and 79 years. The impact on time and stage of diagnosis was computed using an interception modeling approach, with the consequences of cancer modeled based on stage at diagnosis. The model parameters were mainly sourced from the literature, including a published case-control study to inform MCED test performance. All costs were inflated to 2021 US dollars.

RESULTS

Multi-cancer early detection testing shifted cancer diagnoses to earlier stages, with a 53% reduction in stage IV cancer diagnoses, resulting in longer overall survival compared with usual care. Addition of MCED decreased per cancer treatment costs by $5421 and resulted in a gain of 0.13 and 0.38 quality-adjusted life-years across all individuals in the screening program and those diagnosed with cancer, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the potential value-based price of an MCED test was estimated at $1196. The projected survival of individuals diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancers detected at an earlier stage by MCED had the greatest impact on outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

An MCED test with high specificity would potentially improve long-term health outcomes and reduce cancer treatment costs, resulting in a value-based price of $1196 at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold.

Estimating health system opportunity costs: the role of non-linearities and inefficiency

Background

Empirical estimates of health system opportunity costs have been suggested as a basis for the cost-effectiveness threshold to use in Health Technology Assessment. Econometric methods have been used to estimate these in several countries based on data on spending and mortality. This study examines empirical evidence on four issues: non-linearity of the relationship between spending and mortality; the inclusion of outcomes other than mortality; variation in the efficiency with which expenditures generate health outcomes; and the relationship among efficiency, mortality rates and outcome elasticities.

Methods

Quantile Regression is used to examine non-linearities in the relationship between mortality and health expenditures along the mortality distribution. Data Envelopment Analysis extends the approach, using multiple measures of health outcomes to measure efficiency. These are applied to health expenditure data from 151 geographical units (Primary Care Trusts) of the National Health Service in England, across eight different clinical areas (Programme Budget Categories), for 3 fiscal years from 2010/11 to 2012/13.

Results

The results suggest differences in efficiency levels across geographical units and clinical areas as to how health resources generate outcomes, which indicates the capacity to adjust to a decrease in health expenditure without affecting health outcomes. Moreover, efficient units have lower absolute levels of mortality elasticity to health expenditure than inefficient ones.

Conclusions

The policy of adopting thresholds based on estimates of a single system-wide cost-effectiveness threshold assumes a relationship between expenditure and health outcomes that generates an opportunity cost estimate which applies to the whole system. Our evidence of variations in that relationship and therefore in opportunity costs suggests that adopting a single threshold may exacerbate the efficiency and equity concerns that such thresholds are designed to counter. In most health care systems, many decisions about provision are not made centrally. Our analytical approach to understanding variability in opportunity cost can help policy makers target efficiency improvements and set realistic targets for local and clinical area health improvements from increased expenditure.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-022-00391-y.

Germline Testing and Somatic Tumor Testing for BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants in Ovarian Cancer: What Is the Optimal Sequence of Testing?

In 2020, ASCO recommended that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, and those without a germline pathogenic variant (PV) should have somatic tumor testing to determine eligibility for a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. Consequently, the majority of patients with ovarian cancer will have both germline testing and somatic testing. An alternate strategy is tumor testing first and then germline testing if there is a PV in the tumor and/or significant family history. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two testing strategies.

Tumor testing for BRCA pathogenic variants is an efficient, cost-effective triage for germline testing.

A systematic review: Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemic events. The cost of CGM remains a barrier to its widespread application. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence about the cost-effectiveness of utilizing CGM in patients with type 1 diabetes. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to February 2022. Those that assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and reported lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Studies on critically ill or pregnant patients were excluded. Nineteen studies were identified. Most studies compared continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and SMBG to a sensor-augmented pump (SAP). The estimated ICER range was [$18,734-$99,941] and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain range was [0.76-2.99]. Use in patients with suboptimal management or greater hypoglycaemic risk revealed more homogenous results and lower ICERs. Limited studies assessed CGM in the context of multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 4), MDI and SMBG versus SAP (n = 2) and three studies included hybrid closed-loop systems. Most studies (n = 17) concluded that CGM is a cost-effective tool. This systematic review suggests that CGM appears to be a cost-effective tool for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Cost-effectiveness is driven by reducing short- and long-term complications. Use in patients with suboptimal management or at risk of severe hypoglycaemia is most cost-effective.

Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy

There is growing interest in cost-effectiveness thresholds as a tool to inform resource allocation decisions in health care. Studies from several countries have sought to estimate health system opportunity costs, which supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds are intended to represent. In this paper, we consider the role of empirical estimates of supply-side thresholds in policy-making. Recent studies estimate the cost per unit of health based on average displacement or outcome elasticity. We distinguish the types of point estimates reported in empirical work, including marginal productivity, average displacement, and outcome elasticity. Using this classification, we summarise the limitations of current approaches to threshold estimation in terms of theory, methods, and data. We highlight the questions that arise from alternative interpretations of thresholds and provide recommendations to policymakers seeking to use a supply-side threshold where the evidence base is emerging or incomplete. We recommend that: (1) policymakers must clearly define the scope of the application of a threshold, and the theoretical basis for empirical estimates should be consistent with that scope; (2) a process for the assessment of new evidence and for determining changes in the threshold to be applied in policy-making should be created; (3) decision-making processes should retain flexibility in the application of a threshold; and (4) policymakers should provide support for decision-makers relating to the use of thresholds and the implementation of decisions stemming from their application.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point.

METHODS

Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Camrelizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effective analysis in China

OBJECTIVE

Camrelizumab is a selective, humanised, high-affinity IgG₄ kappa monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 that shows effective antitumour activity with acceptable toxicity in multiple tumour types. The CameL trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) significantly prolonged the median progression-free survival and median overall survival versus chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov simulation model was generated based on the CameL trial. The two simulated treatments included CC and CA.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Utility was derived from published literature, and costs were calculated based on those at our hospital in Chengdu, China. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the total costs were $27 223.40 and $13 740.10 for CC and CA treatment, respectively. The CC treatment produced 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the CA treatment produced 1.17 QALYs. Hence, patients who were in the CC group spent an additional $13 483.30 and generated an increase of 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $67 416.50 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, CC is not considered a cost-effective treatment versus CA in China when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31 500 per QALY.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03134872.

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Devices

Question

Is population-based atrial fibrillation (AF) screening using wearable devices cost-effective?

Findings

In this economic evaluation of 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the US population aged 65 years or older, AF screening using wearable devices was cost-effective, with the overall preferred strategy identified as wearable photoplethysmography, followed conditionally by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $57 894 per quality-adjusted life-year). The cost-effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple scenarios, including strata of sex, screening at earlier ages, and with variation in the association of anticoagulation with risk of stroke associated with screening-detected AF.

Meaning

This study suggests that contemporary AF screening using wearable devices may be cost-effective.

Importance

Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AF using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of contemporary AF screening strategies, particularly wrist-worn wearable devices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation used a microsimulation decision-analytic model and was conducted from September 8, 2020, to May 23, 2022, comprising 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the US population aged 65 years or older.

Interventions

Eight AF screening strategies, with 6 using wrist-worn wearable devices (watch or band photoplethysmography, with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and 2 using traditional modalities (ie, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) vs no screening.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary measures included rates of stroke and major bleeding.

Results

In the base case analysis of this model, the mean (SD) age was 72.5 (7.5) years, and 50% of the individuals were women. All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more effective than no screening (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, 226-957 per 100 000 individuals) and were associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, −116 to 93 per 100 000 individuals). Compared with no screening, screening using wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100 000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100 000 person-years. The overall preferred strategy was wearable photoplethysmography, followed conditionally by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 894 per QALY, meeting the acceptability threshold of $100 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple scenarios, including strata of sex, screening at earlier ages (eg, ≥50 years), and with variation in the association of anticoagulation with risk of stroke in the setting of screening-detected AF.

Conclusions and Relevance

This economic evaluation of AF screening using a microsimulation decision-analytic model suggests that screening using wearable devices is cost-effective compared with either no screening or AF screening using traditional methods.

Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: The Value of Information From More Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitates time-sensitive policy and implementation decisions regarding new therapies in the face of uncertainty. This study aimed to quantify consequences of approving therapies or pursuing further research: immediate approval, use only in research, approval with research (eg, emergency use authorization), or reject.

METHODS

Using a cohort state-transition model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with the following interventions: hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, tocilizumab, lopinavir-ritonavir, interferon beta-1a, and usual care. We used the model outcomes to conduct cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses from a US healthcare perspective and a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

Assuming a $100 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, only remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, and tocilizumab were (cost-) effective (incremental net health benefit 0.252, 0.164, 0.545, 0.668, and 0.524 QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit $25 249, $16 375, $54 526, $66 826, and $52 378). Our value of information analyses suggest that most value can be obtained if these 5 therapies are approved for immediate use rather than requiring additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (net value $20.6 billion, $13.4 billion, $7.4 billion, $54.6 billion, and $7.1 billion), hydroxychloroquine (net value $198 million) is only used in further RCTs if seeking to demonstrate decremental cost-effectiveness and otherwise rejected, and interferon beta-1a and lopinavir-ritonavir are rejected (ie, neither approved nor additional RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Estimating the real-time value of collecting additional evidence during the pandemic can inform policy makers and clinicians about the optimal moment to implement therapies and whether to perform further research.

COVID-19 Testing Strategies for K-12 Schools in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Public health officials must provide guidance on operating schools safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from April–December 2021, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess six screening strategies for schools using SARS-CoV-2 antigen and PCR tests and varying screening frequencies for 1000 individuals. We estimated secondary infections averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost per QALY gained, and unnecessary school days missed per infection averted. We conducted sensitivity analyses for the more transmissible Omicron variant. Weekly antigen testing with PCR follow-up for positives was the most cost-effective option given moderate transmission, adding 0.035 QALYs at a cost of USD 320,000 per QALY gained in the base case (Reff = 1.1, prevalence = 0.2%). This strategy had the fewest needlessly missed school days (ten) per secondary infection averted. During widespread community transmission with Omicron (Reff = 1.5, prevalence = 5.8%), twice weekly antigen testing with PCR follow-up led to 2.02 QALYs gained compared to no test and cost the least (USD 187,300), with 0.5 needlessly missed schooldays per infection averted. In periods of moderate community transmission, weekly antigen testing with PCR follow up can help reduce transmission in schools with minimal unnecessary days of school missed. During widespread community transmission, twice weekly antigen screening with PCR confirmation is the most cost-effective and efficient strategy. Schools may benefit from resources to implement routine asymptomatic testing during surges; benefits decline as community transmission declines.

Affordability and Value in Decision Rules for Cost-Effectiveness: A Survey of Health Economists

OBJECTIVES

New health technologies are often expensive, but may nevertheless meet standard thresholds for cost effectiveness, a situation exemplified by recent hepatitis C cures. Currently, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not supply practical means of weighing trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and affordability, particularly when costs and benefits are temporally separated and in health systems with multiple payers, such as the United States. We formally characterized disagreements in CEA theory and identified how these trade-offs are presently addressed in practice.

METHODS

We surveyed 170 health economics researchers.

RESULTS

When presented with a hypothetical cost-effective drug therapy in the United States that would require 20% of a state's Medicaid budget over 5 years, 34% of survey respondents recommended that policy makers fund the drug for all patients and 26% for a subset. By contrast, 26% recommended against funding the drug. We found additional disagreement regarding whether the willingness-to-pay threshold should be based on the budget (42%) or societal preferences (41%) and identified 4 approaches to weighing cost-effectiveness and affordability. A total of 61% of respondents did not believe that the threshold used in their last article (most often 1×-3× per capita gross domestic product) represented either the budget or societal willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

We use these findings to recommend metrics that can inform translation of CEA theory into practice. By contextualizing cost and value, researchers can provide more actionable policy recommendations.

A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVES

Health technology assessment (HTA) uses evidence appraisal and synthesis with economic evaluation to inform adoption decisions. Standard HTA processes sometimes struggle to (1) support decisions that involve significant uncertainty and (2) encourage continued generation of and adaptation to new evidence. We propose the life-cycle (LC)-HTA framework, addressing these challenges by providing additional tools to decision makers and improving outcomes for all stakeholders.

METHODS

Under the LC-HTA framework, HTA processes align to LC management. LC-HTA introduces changes in HTA methods to minimize analytic time while optimizing decision certainty. Where decision uncertainty exists, we recommend risk-based pricing and research-oriented managed access (ROMA). Contractual procurement agreements define the terms of reassessment and provide additional decision options to HTA agencies. LC-HTA extends value-of-information methods to inform ROMA agreements, leveraging routine, administrative data, and registries to reduce uncertainty.

RESULTS

LC-HTA enables the adoption of high-value high-risk innovations while improving health system sustainability through risk-sharing and reducing uncertainty. Responsiveness to evolving evidence is improved through contractually embedded decision rules to simplify reassessment. ROMA allows conditional adoption to obtain additional information, with confidence that the net value of that adoption decision is positive.

CONCLUSIONS

The LC-HTA framework improves outcomes for patients, sponsors, and payers. Patients benefit through earlier access to new technologies. Payers increase the value of the technologies they invest in and gain mechanisms to review investments. Sponsors benefit through greater certainty in outcomes related to their investment, swifter access to markets, and greater opportunities to demonstrate value.

A pragmatic clinical trial of hearing screening in primary care clinics: cost-effectiveness of hearing screening

BACKGROUND

Hearing loss is a high prevalence condition among older adults, is associated with higher-than-average risk for poor health outcomes and quality of life, and is a public health concern to individuals, families, communities, professionals, governments, and policy makers. Although low-cost hearing screening (HS) is widely available, most older adults are not asked about hearing during health care visits. A promising approach to addressing unmet needs in hearing health care is HS in primary care (PC) clinics; most PC providers (PCPs) do not inquire about hearing loss. However, no cost assessment of HS in community PC settings has been conducted in the United States. Thus, this study conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HS using results from a pragmatic clinic trial that compared three HS protocols that differed in the level of support and encouragement provided by the PC office and the PCPs to older adults during their routine visits. Two protocols included HS at home (one with PCP encouragement and one without) and one protocol included HS in the PC office.

METHODS

Direct costs of the HS included costs of: (1) educational materials about hearing loss, (2) PCP educational and encouragement time, and (3) access to the HS system. Indirect costs for in-office HS included cost of space and minimal staff time. Costs were tracked and modeled for each phase of care during and following the HS, including completion of a diagnostic assessment and follow-up with the recommended treatment plan.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average cost per patient is highest in the patient group who completed the HS during their clinic visit, but the average cost per patient who failed the HS is by far the lowest in that group, due to the higher failure rate, that is, rate of identification of patients with suspected hearing loss. Estimated benefits of HS in terms of improvements in quality of life were also far greater when patients completed the HS during their clinic visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing HS to older adults during their PC visit is cost-effective and accrues greater estimated benefits in terms of improved quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (Registration Identification Number: NCT02928107).

Estimation of the cost-effective threshold of a quality-adjusted life year in China based on the value of statistical life

Cost-effective threshold (CET) is essential for health technology assessment and decision-making based on health economic evaluations. Recently, it has been argued that the commonly used once and three times of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita CETs of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are not necessarily empirically supported in all countries. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the CET of a QALY as times of GDP per capita in China, of which the reimbursement coverage decisions are increasingly engaging economic evaluations. Estimates on the value of statistical life (VSL) in China were identified from several studies in the literature and converted to times of GDP per capita, the weighted average of which was used for subsequent calculation. By pooling data on population mortality, health utility, and age distribution, we estimated the value of a statistical QALY (VSQ) from VSL using an established mathematical process, which represented the theoretical upper bound of CET. The corresponding point estimate and theoretical lower bound were obtained using their numerical relationships with the upper bound. Scenarios analyses were also conducted. The estimated CET, its upper bound, and its lower bound were 1.45, 2.90, and 1.16 times of GDP per capita in China, respectively. In different scenarios, the estimated CET varied but was greater than once GDP per capita in most cases. As such, the CET of a QALY in China is close to 1.5 times of GDP per capita, which should be benchmarked for future ICER-based coverage decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China

Background: Tislelizumab, a new high-affinity programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, significantly prolonged the overall survival in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus docetaxel for this population in China.

Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were based on a global phase 3 clinical trial (RATIONALE 303). Utilities were mainly extracted from previously published resources. Costs were calculated from the Chinese healthcare system’s perspective, and only direct medical costs were covered. The main outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried to test the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenarios including tislelizumab price before negotiation, different docetaxel price calculation, 50-year time horizon, and alternative utility values were assessed.

Results: The model predicted an average gain of 0.62 LYs and 0.51 QALY for tislelizumab vs. docetaxel, at the additional cost of $9,219. The resulting ICER was $15,033.92/LY and $18,122.04/QALY, both below the cost-effective threshold (CET) of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust over a plausible range for majority of inputs. Utility of progression-free survival (PFS), followed by the price of tislelizumab, had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probability of being cost-effective for tislelizumab was 96.79% at the CET we set.

Conclusion: Tislelizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered a cost-effective option at current price compared with docetaxel for pretreated advanced NSCLC in China.

Trends in Author-Reported Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds in the United States from 1995 to 2018: Implications for Discount Rates

Background

Decisions based on cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) using equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes are consistent with using a constant cost-effectiveness threshold over time. We sought to analyze trends in author-reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) thresholds from CEAs published for the US setting over 24 y to retrospectively assess whether the recommended equal discount rates for costs and health were consistent with trends in the CEA literature.

Methods

We used the Tufts CEA Registry to assess whether author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds changed in CEAs published for the US setting between 1995 and 2018 and back-calculated the implied discount rate for health based on these trends for inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds and an annual discount rate for costs of 3%.

Results

We found 1995 CEAs published for the US setting and found that average nominal and inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds increased over that time period. The discount rate for health would need to equal 2.43% to 2.48% (depending on the subset of CEAs analyzed) to be consistent with the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds. We also found that restricting our analysis to currency years between 1995 and 2014 would result in a back-calculated discount rate for health of 2.99% to 3.28%.

Conclusions

We found that CEA researchers have implicitly assumed that inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness thresholds in the United States have been increasing over time (1995–2018), which is inconsistent with the recommended and prevailing choice of equal discount rates for health and cost outcomes. Our results are sensitive to the cutoff year used in the analysis.

Highlights

We show visually and through equations that the recommended and prevailing practice of using equal discount rates for cost and health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) logically implies a constant inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness threshold over time. Using data from the Tufts CEA Registry, we found that author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds used in CEAs published for the US setting with currency years between 1995 and 2018 increased over time (both with and without adjustment for inflation). Assuming an annual discount rate for costs equal to 3%, the discount rate for health would need to equal approximately 2.5% to preserve consistency across decisions taken at different dates given the observed trends in inflation-adjusted author-reported cost-effectiveness thresholds. This finding depends on the cutoff year used in the analysis (data from currency years 1995–2014 would support use of equal discount rates, whereas data after 2014 would suggest a sharper trend toward increasing cost-effectiveness thresholds).

Cost-Utility Analysis of Thumb Carpometacarpal Resection Arthroplasty: A Health Economic Study Using Real-World Data

PURPOSE

Knowledge about the costs and benefits of hand surgical interventions is important for surgeons, payers, and policy makers. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of surgery for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. The objective of this study was to examine patients' quality of life and economic costs, with focus on the cost-utility ratio 1 year after surgery for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis compared with that for continued nonsurgical management.

METHODS

Patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis indicated for resection arthroplasty were included in a prospective study. The quality of life (using European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level), direct medical costs, and productivity losses were assessed up to 1 year after surgery. Baseline data at recruitment and costs sustained over 1 year before surgery served as a proxy for nonsurgical management. The total costs to gain 1 extra quality-adjusted life year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated from a health care system and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

The mean European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level value for 151 included patients improved significantly from 0.69 to 0.88 (after surgery). The productivity loss during the preoperative period was 47% for 49 working patients, which decreased to 26% 1 year after surgery. The total costs increased from US $20,451 in the preoperative year to US $24,374 in the postoperative year. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $25,370 per quality-adjusted life year for surgery compared with that for simulated nonsurgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was clearly below the suggested Swiss threshold of US $92,000, indicating that thumb carpometacarpal surgery is a cost-effective intervention.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analyses II.

Assessments of the Value of New Interventions Should Include Health Equity Impact

A formal evaluation of the health equity impact of a new intervention is hardly ever performed as part of a health technology assessment to understand its value. This should change, in our view. An evidence-based quantitative assessment of the health equity impact can help decision makers develop coverage policies, programme designs, and quality initiatives focused on optimizing both total health and health equity given the treatment options available. We outline the conceptual basis of how a new intervention can impact health equity and adopt distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision-analytic models to assess this quantitatively, using a newly US FDA-approved drug for Alzheimer's disease (aducanumab) as an example. We argue that gaps in the evidence base for the new intervention, for example, due to limited clinical research participation among racial and ethnic minority groups, do not preclude such an evaluation. Understanding these uncertainties has implications for fair pricing, decision making, and future research. If we are serious about population-level decision making that not only is focused on improving total health but also aims to improve health equity, we should consider routinely assessing the health equity impact of new interventions.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts.

METHODS

A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers.

RESULTS

At a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment).

CONCLUSIONS

With the current evidence available, remdesivir's price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment.

Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries

BACKGROUND

When healthcare budgets are exogenous, cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) used to inform funding decisions should represent the health opportunity cost (HOC) of such funding decisions, but HOC-based CET estimates have not been available until recently. In recent years, empirical HOC-based CETs for multiple countries have been published, but the use of these CETs in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature has not been investigated. Analysis of the use of HOC-based CETs by researchers undertaking CEAs in countries with different decision-making contexts will provide valuable insights to further understand barriers and facilitators to the acceptance and use of HOC-based CETs.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify the CET values used to interpret the results of CEAs published in the scientific literature before and after the publication of jurisdiction-specific empirical HOC-based CETs in four countries.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review of CEAs published in Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and South Africa between 2016 (2014 in Spain) and 2020. CETs used before and after publication of HOC estimates were recorded. We conducted logit regressions exploring factors explaining the use of HOC values in identified studies and linear models exploring the association of the reported CET value with study characteristics and results.

RESULTS

1171 studies were included in this review (870 CEAs and 301 study protocols). HOC values were cited in 28% of CEAs in Spain and in 11% of studies conducted in Australia, but they were not referred to in CEAs undertaken in the Netherlands and South Africa. Regression analyses on Spanish and Australian studies indicate that more recent studies, studies without a conflict of interest and studies estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the HOC value were more likely to use the HOC as a threshold reference. In addition, we found a small but significant impact indicating that for every dollar increase in the estimated ICER, the reported CET increased by US$0.015. Based on the findings of our review, we discuss the potential factors that might explain the lack of adoption of HOC-based CETs in the empirical CEA literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of HOC-based CETs by identified published CEAs has been uneven across the four analysed countries, most likely due to underlying differences in their decision-making processes. Our results also reinforce a previous finding indicating that CETs might be endogenously selected to fit authors' conclusions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Dose Antithymocyte Globulin Versus Other Immunotherapies for Treatment of New-Onset Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: Several immunotherapies have shown efficacy in slowing C-peptide decline in new-onset type 1 diabetes. Although most of these biologic drugs are expensive, they offer the opportunity to reduce downstream disease management costs and risk of complications. The objective of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapies versus no treatment for patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes. Methods: Using Markov microsimulation modeling and efficacy data from immunotherapy trials, we examined the cost-effectiveness of six immunotherapies for new-onset type 1 diabetes, namely, low-dose (2.5 mg/kg) antithymocyte globulin (ATG), high-dose (6.5 mg/kg) ATG, abatacept, alefacept, rituximab, and teplizumab, versus no treatment. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were estimated from a health system perspective. Results: Low-dose ATG treatment saves US$10,270, on average, over a patient's lifetime and generates 0.09 additional QALYs compared with no treatment. These cost savings arise as low-dose ATG generates downstream savings in disease management costs that more than offset its cost. In contrast, treatment with other immunotherapies yields smaller QALY gains (0.02-0.05 additional QALYs) and increases lifetime costs by US$9500-US$168,380 relative to no treatment, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY. Conclusions: Low-dose ATG treatment is both less costly and more effective relative to other immunotherapies and no treatment for new-onset type 1 diabetes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Medicine in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The STICH Randomized Clinical Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure) demonstrated that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduced all-cause mortality rates out to 10 years compared with medical therapy alone (MED) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤35%). We examined the economic implications of these results.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic patient-level simulation model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of CABG and MED using patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the STICH trial. Patient-level costs were calculated by applying externally derived US cost weights to resource use counts during trial follow-up. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective.

RESULTS

For the CABG arm, we estimated 6.53 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, 5.70-7.53) and a lifetime cost of $140 059 (95% CI, $106 401 to $180 992). For the MED arm, the corresponding estimates were 5.52 (95% CI, 5.06-6.09) quality-adjusted life-years and $74 894 lifetime cost (95% CI, $58 372 to $93 541). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG compared with MED was $63 989 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, CABG was found to be economically favorable compared with MED in 87% of microsimulations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the STICH trial, in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular function, CABG was economically attractive relative to MED at current benchmarks for value in the United States.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT00023595.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antibiotic-Eluting Envelope for Prevention of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Use of an antibiotic-eluting envelope (AEE) during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures reduces infection risk but increases procedural costs. We aim to estimate the cost-effectiveness of AEE use during cardiac implantable electronic device procedures among patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A state-transition cohort model of heart failure patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation or generator replacement was developed with input parameters estimated from randomized trials, registries, surveys, and claims data. Effectiveness was estimated from the World-Wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial. AEE was assumed to cost $953 per unit. The model projected mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AEE use compared with usual care from a US healthcare sector perspective over a lifetime horizon. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Compared with usual care, AEE use in initial implantations produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (39% probability of being cost-effective). In generator replacement procedures, AEE use produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (84% probability of being cost-effective). Results were sensitive to the underlying rate of infection, cost of the AEE, and durability of AEE effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal AEE use for cardiac implantable electronic device procedures in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is unlikely to be cost-effective, reinforcing the need for individualized risk assessment to guide uptake of the AEE in clinical practice. Selective use in patients at increased risk of infection, such as those undergoing generator replacement procedures, is more likely to meet health system value benchmarks.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Medical Therapy, Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Gastric Bypass in Patients With Severe Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes

Importance

Bariatric surgery is recommended for patients with severe obesity (body mass index ≥40) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the most cost-effective treatment remains unclear and may depend on the patient's T2D severity.

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among patients with severe obesity and T2D, stratified by T2D severity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of medical therapy, SG, and RYGB over 5 years. Time horizons varied between 10 and 30 years in sensitivity analyses. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large cohort studies, national databases, and published literature. Probabilistic sampling of model inputs accounted for parameter uncertainty. Estimates of US adults with severe obesity and T2D were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2021.

Exposures

Medical therapy, SG, and RYGB.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were projected, with future cost and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY. The preferred strategy resulted in the greatest number of QALYs gained while being cost-effective.

Results

The model simulated 1000 cohorts of 10 000 patients, of whom 16% had mild T2D, 56% had moderate T2D, and 28% had severe T2D at baseline. The mean age of simulated patients was 54.6 years (95% CI, 54.2-55.0 years), 61.6% (95% CI, 60.1%-63.4%) were female, and 65.1% (95% CI, 63.6%-66.7%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with medical therapy over 5 years, RYGB was associated with the most QALYs gained in the overall population (mean, 0.44 QALY; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86 QALY) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (mean, 0.59 QALY; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98 QALY), moderate (mean, 0.50 QALY; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88 QALY), and severe (mean, 0.30 QALY; 95% CI, 0.07-0.79 QALY). RYGB was the preferred strategy in the overall population (ICER, $46 877 per QALY; 83.0% probability preferred) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (ICER, $36 479 per QALY; 73.7% probability preferred), moderate (ICER, $37 056 per QALY; 85.6% probability preferred), and severe (ICER, $98 940 per QALY; 40.2% probability preferred). The cost-effectiveness of RYGB improved over a longer time horizon.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery vary by baseline severity of T2D. Over a 5-year time horizon, RYGB is projected to be the preferred treatment strategy for patients with severe obesity regardless of baseline T2D severity.

Cost-effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Antibody-drug conjugates have recently been introduced as a treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. The EV-301 study demonstrated that enfortumab vedotin (EV) improved overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy. To assess the cost-effectiveness of EV for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) from a payer perspective in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed to assess the efficacy and economic viability of EV as a subsequent-line treatment following disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma already treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical and utility values were obtained from the published literature and available databases. Cost data were obtained from payer perspectives in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in comparison to willingness-to-pay in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, EV increased the benefit by 0.16-0.17 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $2,168,746.71, $2,164,494.38, and $1,775,576.56 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the largest effect on outcome was the utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of EV being cost-effective was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

EV provides an additional health benefit over chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma but is not cost-effective from a payer perspective in the United States, United Kingdom, or China.

An Empirical Analysis of Income Elasticity of Out-of-Pocket Healthcare Expenditure in Mauritius

A free universal healthcare provision exists in Mauritius. Yet the share of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure out of total household expenditure has been growing over time. This study estimates income elasticity of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure using Mauritian household data within an Engel curve framework. In the absence of longitudinal data on out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure patterns, the study proposes the application of the pseudo-panel approach using cross-sectional Household Budget Survey waves from 1996/97 to 2017. Income elasticity of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure is estimated to be 0.938, which is just below unity. This implies that out-of-pocket healthcare demand is not considered to be a luxury, but a necessity in Mauritius. In order to see the differences in income elasticities by income groups, separate regressions are estimated for each income quartile over different years. The results indicate that income elasticities of out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure vary non-monotonically.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550-$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range - $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from - $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability.

Empirical Estimates of the Marginal Cost of Health Produced by a Healthcare System: Methodological Considerations from Country-Level Estimates

Many health technology assessment committees have an explicit or implicit reference value (often referred to as a 'threshold') below which new health technologies or interventions are considered value for money. The basis for these reference values is unclear but one argument is that it should be based on the health opportunity costs of funding decisions. Empirical estimates of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by a healthcare system have been proposed to capture the health opportunity costs of new funding decisions. Based on a systematic search, we identified eight studies that have sought to estimate a reference value through empirical estimation of the marginal cost per unit of health produced by a healthcare system for England, Spain, Australia, The Netherlands, Sweden, South Africa and China. We review these eight studies to provide an overview of the key methodological approaches taken to estimate the marginal cost per unit of health produced by the healthcare system with the aim to help inform future estimates for additional countries. The lead author for each of these papers was invited to contribute to the current paper to ensure all the key methodological issues encountered were appropriately captured. These included consideration of the key variables required and their measurement, accounting for endogeneity of spending to health outcomes, the inclusion of lagged spending, discounting and future costs, the use of analytical weights, level of disease aggregation, expected duration of health gains, and modelling approaches to estimating mortality and morbidity effects of health spending. Subsequent research estimates for additional countries should (1) carefully consider the specific context and data available, (2) clearly and transparently report the assumptions made and include stakeholder perspectives on their appropriateness and acceptability, and (3) assess the sensitivity of the preferred central estimate to these assumptions.

The cost-per-QALY threshold in England: Identifying structural uncertainty in the estimates

Introduction

There are increasing numbers of estimates of opportunity cost to inform the setting of thresholds as ceiling cost-per-quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratios. To understand their ability to inform policy making, we need to understand the degree of uncertainty surrounding these estimates. In particular, do estimates provide sufficient certainty that the current policy "rules" or "benchmarks" need revision? Does the degree of uncertainty around those estimates mean that further evidence generation is required?

Methods

We analyse uncertainty and methods from three papers that focus on the use of data from the NHS in England to estimate opportunity cost. All estimate the impact of expenditure on mortality in cross-sectional regression analyses and then translate the mortality elasticities into cost-per-QALY thresholds using the same assumptions. All three discuss structural uncertainty around the regression analysis, and report parameter uncertainty derived from their estimated standard errors. However, only the initial, seminal, paper explores the structural uncertainty involved in moving from the regression analysis to a threshold. We discuss the elements of structural uncertainty arising from the assumptions that underpin the translation of elasticities to thresholds and seek to quantify the importance of some of the effects.

Results

We find several sets of plausible structural assumptions that would place the threshold estimates from these studies within the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) range of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY. Heterogeneity, an additional source of uncertainty from variability, is also discussed and reported.

Discussion

Lastly, we discuss how decision uncertainty around the threshold could be reduced, setting out what sort of additional research is required, notably in improving estimates of disease burden and of the impact of health expenditure on quality of life. Given the likely value to policy makers of this research it should be a priority for health system research funding.

Cost-Effectiveness of Preoperative Spinal Imaging Before Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The risk of instability, dislocation, and revision following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increased in patients with abnormal spinopelvic mobility. Seated and standing lateral lumbar spine imaging can identify patients with stiff/hypermobile spine (SHS) to guide interventions such as changes in acetabular cup placement or use of a dual-mobility hip construct aimed at reducing dislocation risk.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was created to compare routine preoperative spinal imaging (PSI) to no screening in patients with and without SHS. Screened patients with SHS were assumed to receive dual-mobility hardware while those without SHS and nonscreened patients were assumed to receive conventional THA. Cost-effectiveness was determined by estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with $100,000 per additional QALY as the threshold for cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the base-case result.

RESULTS

The screening strategy with PSI had a lifetime cost of $12,515 and QALY gains of 16.91 compared with no-screening ($13,331 and 16.77). The PSI strategy reached cost-effectiveness at 5 years and was dominant (ie, less costly and more effective) at 11 years following THA. In sensitivity analyses, PSI remained the dominant strategy if prevalence of SHS was >1.9%, the cost of PSI was <$925, and the cost of dual-mobility hardware exceeded the cost of conventional hardware by <$2850.

CONCLUSION

Screening patients for SHS prior to THA with PSI is both less costly and more effective and should be considered as part of standard presurgical workup.

Avoiding Opportunity Cost Neglect in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment

Despite being a fundamental tenet of economic analysis there is a lack of clarity regarding the relevance of opportunity costs to cost-effectiveness analysis for health technology assessment. We argue that this is due, in part, to the importance of the decision context in understanding the nature of opportunity costs. Taking the example of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on behalf of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales, we explore the implications of existing discrepancies between policy thresholds and emerging empirical evidence of health opportunity costs. In particular, we consider analysts communicating the results of cost-effectiveness analysis, and recommend that analysts provide analysis according to both the policy threshold and the latest empirical evidence until the discrepancies are better understood or resolved. A number of conceptually related, but distinct, issues are discussed and clarified.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Treatments in Young Adults

BACKGROUND

Raised low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in young adulthood (aged 18-39 years) is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) later in life. Most young adults with elevated LDL-C do not currently receive lipid-lowering treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of elevated LDL-C in ASCVD-free U.S. young adults and the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering strategies for raised LDL-C in young adulthood compared with standard care.

METHODS

The prevalence of raised LDL-C was examined in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The CVD Policy Model projected lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lipid-lowering strategies. Standard care was statin treatment for adults aged ≥40 years based on LDL-C, ASCVD risk, or diabetes plus young adults with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL. Lipid lowering incremental to standard care with moderate-intensity statins or intensive lifestyle interventions was simulated starting when young adult LDL-C was either ≥160 mg/dL or ≥130 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Approximately 27% of ASCVD-free young adults have LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL, and 9% have LDL-C of ≥160 mg/dL. The model projected that young adult lipid lowering with statins or lifestyle interventions would prevent lifetime ASCVD events and increase QALYs compared with standard care. ICERs were US$31,000/QALY for statins in young adult men with LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL and US$106,000/QALY for statins in young adult women with LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL. Intensive lifestyle intervention was more costly and less effective than statin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Statin treatment for LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL is highly cost-effective in young adult men and intermediately cost-effective in young adult women.

An Evidence Review of Low-Value Care Recommendations: Inconsistency and Lack of Economic Evidence Considered

BACKGROUND

Low-value care, typically defined as health services that provide little or no benefit, has potential to cause harm, incur unnecessary costs, and waste limited resources. Although evidence-based guidelines identifying low-value care have increased, the guidelines differ in the type of evidence they cite to support recommendations against its routine use.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the evidentiary rationale underlying recommendations against low-value interventions.

DESIGN

We identified 1167 "low-value care" recommendations across five US organizations: the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the "Choosing Wisely" Initiative, American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). For each recommendation, we classified the reported evidentiary rationale into five groups: (1) low economic value; (2) no net clinical benefit; (3) little or no absolute clinical benefit; (4) insufficient evidence; (5) no reason mentioned. We further investigated whether any cited or otherwise available cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with conventional low economic value benchmarks (e.g., exceeding $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Of the identified low-value care recommendations, Choosing Wisely contributed the most (N=582, 50%), followed by ACC/AHA (N=250, 21%). The services deemed "low value" differed substantially across organizations. "No net clinical benefit" (N=428, 37%) and "little or no clinical benefit" (N=296, 25%) were the most commonly reported reasons for classifying an intervention as low value. Consideration of economic value was less frequently reported (N=171, 15%). When relevant cost-effectiveness studies were available, their results were mostly consistent with low-value care recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that evidentiary rationales for low-value care vary substantially, with most recommendations relying on clinical evidence. Broadening the evidence base to incorporate cost-effectiveness evidence can help refine the definition of "low-value" care to reflect whether an intervention's costs are worth the benefits. Developing a consensus grading structure on the strength and evidentiary rationale may help improve de-implementation efforts for low-value care.

A Systematic Review of Economic and Quality-of-Life Research in Carcinoid Syndrome

BACKGROUND

To date, the economic burden and patient-reported outcomes associated with carcinoid syndrome (CS) in patients with neuroendocrine tumor (NET) remain largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of economic and quality-of-life (QOL) studies related to the treatment of CS.

METHODS

Articles included in the review were extracted from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies had to be in English and published between 1 January 2000 and 2 July 2020. Other study eligibility criteria included patients with NET with CS receiving treatment for CS, study outcomes of cost or QOL, and clinical trials or population-based studies using claims or other secondary databases. The interventions included somatostatin analogs, telotristat ethyl, or other treatment for CS. To evaluate the quality and bias of the included studies, the 24-item CHEERS and 10-item Gill and Feinstein checklists were used. We report a narrative synthesis of the findings from the selected studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 economic and 12 QOL studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Patients with uncontrolled CS symptoms had 23-92% higher costs than those with controlled CS; mostly, ambulatory/outpatient services were the primary drivers of the costs. The use of telotristat ethyl may be cost effective if the societal willingness to pay is as high as $US150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in the USA. Of the 12 QOL papers, only three case-control studies assessed QOL at baseline and more than two follow-up time points. Seven studies evaluated QOL at two or more time points but lacked a control group, obscuring direct intervention effects on patients' well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed wide variations in the reviewed studies evaluating the economic burden and patient-reported outcomes, in terms of cost and QOL, of patients with CS. Although QOL is consistently impaired and costs are consistently increased by CS, the numbers of both cost and QOL studies among this patient population remain sparse, and many of the existing studies indicated an important need for quality improvement.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Anlotinib as Third- or Further-Line Treatment for Relapsed Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) in China

INTRODUCTION

The survival of patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has achieved little progress in the last several decades. ALTER1202 confirmed the efficacy and safety of anlotinib as a third- or further-line option for relapsed SCLC. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib compared with placebo as third- or further-line treatment for advanced SCLC in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate the process of advanced SCLC and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anlotinib versus placebo. The health outcomes and utilities were derived from the ALTER1202 (NCT03059797) and published sources, respectively. Total costs were calculated from the perspective of Chinese society. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the model uncertainties.

RESULTS

Anlotinib was estimated to result in an additional 0.12 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $2131.32, resulting in an ICER of $17,741.94/QALY. The ICER did not exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,833 per QALY, which was three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of China in 2019. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of anlotinib exerted the maximum influence on the result of the model, followed by the utility of progression-free survival (PFS) state in the anlotinib group and median overall survival (mOS) in the anlotinib group. In PSA, the probability of anlotinib being cost-effective was 26.6% and 78.5% when the WTP threshold was one and three times the GDP per capita, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Anlotinib is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with placebo for patients with relapsed SCLC who experience failure of at least two lines of chemotherapy in China.

The Price of Progress: Cost, Access, and Adoption of Novel Cardiovascular Drugs in Clinical Practice

Purpose of Review

The launch of new effective and safe cardiovascular drugs has produced large gains in health outcomes for several cardiovascular conditions. But this innovation comes at the cost of rapidly increasing pharmaceutical spending and high out-of-pocket costs.

Recent Findings

In the USA, manufacturers are able to set prices according to what the market will bear rather than value to patients or society, with a complicated system of discounts and rebates obscuring the final price borne by payors. Some of these costs are passed on to patients in the form of co-payments or co-insurance, making these effective but high-cost medications unaffordable for many patients. Orphan drugs developed to treat rare diseases—for which manufactures are presented substantial financial and regulatory benefits—are particularly problematic, as they typically enter the market at very high prices compared with drugs for other indications.

Summary

Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses from the healthcare sector or societal perspectives can help identify the value-based price of a medication at market entry as well as later in the lifecycle of the drug when more data on effectiveness and safety becomes available. Despite bipartisan support, legislative progress on drug pricing has been slow. Clinicians should know the cost of the drugs they prescribe frequently, use generics where feasible, and regularly discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients to pre-empt cost-related non-adherence.

Controversy Over Using Quality-Adjusted Life-Years In Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review

Researchers and policy makers in the US are exploring the implementation of health technology assessment and value-based pricing to negotiate drug prices and limit spending. Objections made to the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), the most frequently used health economic outcome for such assessments, are a barrier to the adoption of these tools. This literature review identifies and addresses the range of criticisms made against QALYs. Methods-based criticisms require attention from stakeholders to address well-known shortcomings of the QALY and ensure consistency. Ethical criticisms, however, do not apply only to the QALY and require political decisions about societal values. Understanding and overcoming criticisms of the QALY to enable its use as part of health technology assessment and value-based pricing will be crucial as US policy makers seek to address high drug costs and health care spending.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Defibrillators for Asymptomatic Brugada Syndrome: A Decision-Analytic Model

Background Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain. Methods and Results We developed an individual-level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average-risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)-guided implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural-related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost-effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS-guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS-guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD-based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20-39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS-guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5-51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%-1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS-guided subcutaneous ICD was cost-effective ($80 508/QALY). Conclusions Device-based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.

Estimating optimal willingness to pay thresholds for cost-effectiveness analysis: A generalized method

Operationalizing cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires that decisionmakers select maximum willingness to pay thresholds (K). We generalize previous methods used to estimate K using highly flexible hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) utility functions that encompass a wide range of risk behavior. For HARA utility, we calculate formulas for relative risk aversion (r*) and relative prudence (π^∗ ), using literature-based estimates to calibrate our HARA model. We then assess optimal WTP thresholds (K) in absolute value and relative to income (K/M). Across the most-plausible range of risk preference parameters (r* and π^∗ ), optimal K/M ratios sit (approximately) in the range of 1 to 3, although we cannot readily rule out larger K/M values. The optimal K always increases with income, while K/M falls with income if utility has increasing relative risk aversion. Results of this more-general model of economic utility are broadly consistent with previous work using more-restrictive Weibull functions. More precision in measuring the key parameters-particularly relative prudence (π^∗ ) will narrow down the range of K/M estimates. The highly general HARA structure illuminates why and how optimal CEA thresholds change with income. An appendix illuminates how relative risk aversion and relative prudence relate to each other.

Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Importance

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction produces substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Dapagliflozin is the first sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Objective

To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients with or without diabetes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation developed and used a Markov cohort model that compared dapagliflozin and guideline-directed medical therapy with guideline-directed medical therapy alone in a hypothetical cohort of US adults with similar clinical characteristics as participants of the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (DAPA-HF) trial. Dapagliflozin was assumed to cost $4192 annually. Nonparametric modeling was used to estimate long-term survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of parameter uncertainty. Data were analyzed between September 2019 and January 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

The simulated cohort had a starting age of 66 years, and 41.8% had diabetes at baseline. Median (interquartile range) survival in the guideline-directed medical therapy arm was 6.8 (3.5-11.3) years. Dapagliflozin was projected to add 0.63 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.25-1.15) QALYs at an incremental lifetime cost of $42 800 (95% UI, $37 100-$50 300), for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $68 300 per QALY gained (95% UI, $54 600-$117 600 per QALY gained; cost-effective in 94% of probabilistic simulations at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained). Findings were similar in individuals with or without diabetes but were sensitive to drug cost.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and be cost-effective at current US prices. Scalable strategies for improving uptake of dapagliflozin may improve long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.