A scoping review of statistical methods for trial-based economic evaluations: The current state of play

Effectiveness of kangaroo mother care before clinical stabilisation versus standard care among neonates at five hospitals in Uganda (OMWaNA): a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. WHO recommends kangaroo mother care (KMC); however, its effects on mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and its relative costs remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of KMC initiated before clinical stabilisation versus standard care in neonates weighing up to 2000 g.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial in five hospitals across Uganda. Singleton or twin neonates aged younger than 48 h weighing 700-2000 g without life-threatening clinical instability were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) neonates to either KMC initiated before stabilisation (intervention group) or standard care (control group) via a computer-generated random allocation sequence with permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by birthweight and recruitment site. Parents, caregivers, and health-care workers were unmasked to treatment allocation; however, the independent statistician who conducted the analyses was masked. After randomisation, neonates in the intervention group were placed prone and skin-to-skin on the caregiver's chest, secured with a KMC wrap. Neonates in the control group were cared for in an incubator or radiant heater, as per hospital practice; KMC was not initiated until stability criteria were met. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality at 7 days, analysed by intention to treat. The economic evaluation assessed incremental costs and cost-effectiveness from a disaggregated societal perspective. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 9, 2019, and July 31, 2022, 2221 neonates were randomly assigned: 1110 (50·0%) neonates to the intervention group and 1111 (50·0%) neonates to the control group. From randomisation to age 7 days, 81 (7·5%) of 1083 neonates in the intervention group and 83 (7·5%) of 1102 neonates in the control group died (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·74-1·28]; p=0·85). From randomisation to 28 days, 119 (11·3%) of 1051 neonates in the intervention group and 134 (12·8%) of 1049 neonates in the control group died (RR 0·88 [0·71-1·09]; p=0·23). Even if policy makers place no value on averting neonatal deaths, the intervention would have 97% probability from the provider perspective and 84% probability from the societal perspective of being more cost-effective than standard care.

INTERPRETATION

KMC initiated before stabilisation did not reduce early neonatal mortality; however, it was cost-effective from the societal and provider perspectives compared with standard care. Additional investment in neonatal care is needed for increased impact, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

FUNDING

Joint Global Health Trials scheme of the Department of Health and Social Care, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UKRI Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Economic evaluations of treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents: Protocol for a scoping review

AIM

Depressive disorders in adolescents are common and impairing. Evidence-based treatments are available; however, at a cost. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate increased demand for treatment services for adolescents with depression. We also anticipate that economic resources will be strained. Identifying cost-effective strategies to optimally treat depression in adolescents is imperative. This protocol for a scoping review aims to describe the literature with respect to economic evaluations of treatments for depression in adolescents.

METHODS

We will conduct a scoping review using established methods and reporting guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsyclNFO, Econlit, and the International HTA Database will be searched from inception to June 13, 2023, with an update closer to time of manuscript submission, while the NHS Economic Evaluation Database archives will be searched from inception to December 2014. Publications that contain economic evaluations, in the context of a clinical trial or a model-based study, testing a treatment of depression in adolescents will be selected for inclusion. Extracted data items will include: economic evaluation perspectives, health outcome variables and costs used in economic evaluations, types of analyses performed, as well as quality of reporting and methodology.

RESULT

A narrative synthesis with summary tables will be used to describe our findings.

CONCLUSION

Our findings will help identify gaps in the literature with respect to economic analyses for the treatment of depression such that these gaps can be filled with future research. Policy-makers, funders and administrators may also use our findings to inform their decisions around provision of various treatments for depression in adolescents.

REGISTRATION

osf.io/5fteb (note that information on this link will be updated upon acceptance for publication based on reviewer comments).

A Tutorial on Net Benefit Regression for Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Censored Data from Randomized or Observational Studies

HIGHLIGHTS

We illustrate the steps involved in carrying out cost-effectiveness analysis using net benefit regressions with possibly censored demo data by providing step-by-step guidance and code applied to a data set.We demonstrate the importance of these new methods by illustrating how naïve methods for handling censoring can lead to biased cost-effectiveness results.

Cost-utility analysis of a telehealth psychological support intervention for people with primary brain tumor: Telehealth Making Sense of brain tumor

OBJECTIVE

To undertake an economic evaluation of a telehealth psychological support intervention for patients with primary brain tumor (PBT).

METHODS

A within-trial cost-utility analysis over 6 months was performed comparing a tailored telehealth-psychological support intervention with standard care (SC) in a randomized control trial. Data were sourced from the Telehealth Making Sense of Brain Tumor (Tele-MAST) trial survey data, project records, and administrative healthcare claims. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on the EuroQol-5D-5L. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 2000 iterations was used to determine sampling uncertainty. Multiple imputation was used for handling missing data.

RESULTS

The Tele-MAST trial included 82 participants and was conducted in Queensland, Australia during 2018-2021. When all healthcare claims were included, the incremental cost savings from Tele-MAST were -AU$4,327 (95% CI: -$8637, -$18) while incremental QALY gains were small at 0.03 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.08). The likelihood of Tele-MAST being cost-effective versus SC was 87% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000 per QALY gain. When psychological-related healthcare costs were included only, the incremental cost per QALY gain was AU$10,685 (95% CI: dominant, $24,566) and net monetary benefits were AU$534 (95% CI: $466, $602) with a 65% likelihood of the intervention being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this small randomized controlled trial, the Tele-MAST intervention is a cost-effective intervention for improving the quality of life of people with PBT in Australia. Patients receiving the intervention incurred significantly lower overall healthcare costs than patients in SC. There was no significant difference in costs incurred for psychological health services.

Conducting Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Using R: A Tutorial

Trial-based economic evaluations are increasingly being conducted to support healthcare decision-making. When analysing trial-based economic evaluation data, different methodological challenges may be encountered, including (i) missing data, (ii) correlated costs and effects, (iii) baseline imbalances and (iv) skewness of costs and/or effects. Despite the broad range of methods available to account for these methodological challenges in effectiveness studies, they may not always be directly applicable in trial-based economic evaluations where costs and effects are analysed jointly, and more than one methodological challenge typically needs to be addressed simultaneously. The use of inappropriate methods can bias results and conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Eventually, such low-quality evidence can hamper healthcare decision-making, which may in turn result in a waste of already scarce healthcare resources. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide step-by-step guidance on how to combine appropriate statistical methods for handling the abovementioned methodological challenges using a ready-to-use R script. The theoretical background of the described methods is provided, and their application is illustrated using a simulated trial-based economic evaluation.

The cost-effectiveness of an indicated blended care intervention in primary care compared to usual care in patients with moderate persistent somatic symptoms

INTRODUCTION

Appropriate treatment for people with an increased risk for developing chronic Persistent Somatic Symptoms (PSS) is of great importance at an early stage to improve quality of life and prevent high costs for society.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an integrated blended care intervention compared to usual care for QALYs, subjective symptom impact and physical and mental health status in patients with moderate PSS.

METHODS

This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month prospective, multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial in Dutch primary care. 80 participants received the intervention and 80 participants received usual care. Seemingly unrelated regression analyzes were performed to estimate cost and effect differences. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate uncertainty.

RESULTS

We found no significant difference in total societal costs. Intervention, primary and secondary healthcare and absenteeism costs were higher for the intervention group. The ICER for QALYs demonstrated the intervention was on average less costly and less effective compared to usual care. For the subjective symptom impact and physical health, the ICER indicated that the intervention group was on average less costly and more effective. For mental health, the intervention was on average more costly and less effective.

CONCLUSION

We didn't find an integrated blended primary care intervention to be cost-effective compared to usual care. However, when looking on relevant, but specific outcome measures (subjective symptom impact and physical health) for this population, average costs are found to be lower and the effectiveness found to be higher.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive, individualised walking and education program for prevention of low back pain recurrence in adults: statistical analysis plan for the WalkBack randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise for the prevention of low back pain recurrences is recommended, but under-researched. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking program for preventing low back pain recurrence remains unknown. This a priori statistical analysis plan describes the methods of analysis for the WalkBack trial.

METHODS

WalkBack is a prospectively registered, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. The aim is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month progressive and individualised walking and education program (intervention) for the prevention of low back pain recurrences, compared to a no-treatment control group. The primary outcome is days to the first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting low back pain. Key secondary outcomes include days to any recurrence of low back pain, days to a care-seeking recurrence of low back pain, disability level, health-related quality of life, costs associated with low back pain and adverse events. All participants will be followed for a minimum of 12 months. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Cox regression is planned to assess the effects for the outcomes of time to activity-limiting, minimal and care-seeking recurrence. Hazard ratios and median survival times with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. The effect of the intervention on continuous outcomes will be estimated with repeated-measure linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal perspective for recurrence prevented (yes/no) and quality-adjusted life years. The proportion of adverse events between groups will be compared using Fisher's exact test.

DISCUSSION

The WalkBack trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a walking intervention to prevent low back pain recurrences. This statistical analysis plan provides transparency on the analysis of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

WalkBack - Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive individualised walking and education program for the prevention of a recurrence of low back pain. ACTRN12619001134112 . Date Registered: 14/08/2019.