The use of cost per life year gained as a measurement of cost-effectiveness in Spain: a systematic review of recent publications

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Europe: Have Studies Included Optimal Screening Intensities?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the range of strategies analysed in European cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with respect to the screening intervals, age ranges and test cut-offs used to define positivity, to examine how this might influence what strategies are found to be optimal, and compare them with the current screening policies with a focus on the screening interval.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for peer-reviewed, model-based CEAs of CRC screening. We included studies on average-risk European populations using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or faecal immunochemical test (FIT). We adapted Drummond's ten-point checklist to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Biennial screening was the most frequently used interval which was analysed in 37 studies. Annual screening was assessed in 13 studies, all of which found it optimally cost-effective. Despite this, 25 of 26 European stool-based programmes use biennial screening. Many CEAs did not vary the age range, but the 14 that did generally found broader ranges optimal. Only 11 studies considered alternative FIT cut-offs, 9 of which found lower cut-offs superior. Conflicts between current policy and CEA evidence are less clear regarding age ranges and cut-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

The existing CEA evidence indicates that the widely adopted biennial frequency of stool-based testing in Europe is suboptimal. It is likely that many more lives could be saved throughout Europe if programmes could be offered with more intensive annual screening.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination of Older Adults with an MF59®-Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared to Standard-Dose and High-Dose Vaccines in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden

Individuals aged 65 years and above are at increased risk of complications and death from influenza compared with any other age group. Enhanced vaccines, as the MF59®-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (HD-QIV), provide increased protection for older adults in comparison to the traditional standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines (SD-QIV). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of aQIV compared to SD-QIV and HD-QIV in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for adults aged ≥65 years. A static decision tree model was used to evaluate costs and outcomes of different vaccination strategies from healthcare payer and societal perspectives. This model projects that compared to SD-QIV, vaccination with aQIV could prevent a combined total of 18,772 symptomatic influenza infections, 925 hospitalizations, and 161 deaths in one influenza season across the three countries. From a healthcare payer perspective, the incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained with aQIV versus SD-QIV were EUR 10,170/QALY in Denmark, EUR 12,515/QALY in Norway, and EUR 9894/QALY in Sweden. The aQIV was cost saving compared with HD-QIV. This study found that introducing aQIV to the entire population aged ≥65 years may contribute to reducing the disease and economic burden associated with influenza in these countries.

Treatment options for progression or recurrence of glioblastoma: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant brain tumour that almost inevitably progresses or recurs after first line standard of care. There is no consensus regarding the best treatment/s to offer people upon disease progression or recurrence. For the purposes of this review, progression and recurrence are considered as one entity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of further treatment/s for first and subsequent progression or recurrence of glioblastoma (GBM) among people who have received the standard of care (Stupp protocol) for primary treatment of the disease; and to prepare a brief economic commentary on the available evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from 2005 to December 2019 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in the Cochrane Library; Issue 12, 2019). Economic searches included the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) up to 2015 (database closure) and MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to December 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies (NRSs) evaluating effectiveness of treatments for progressive/recurrent GBM. Eligible studies included people with progressive or recurrent GBM who had received first line radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data to a pre-designed data extraction form. We conducted network meta-analyses (NMA) and ranked treatments according to effectiveness for each outcome using the random-effects model and Stata software (version 15). We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies: these comprised 34 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 8 non-randomised studies (NRSs) involving 5236 participants. We judged most RCTs to be at a low risk of bias and NRSs at high risk of bias. Interventions included chemotherapy, re-operation, re-irradiation and novel therapies either used alone or in combination. For first recurrence, we included 11 interventions in the network meta-analysis (NMA) for overall survival (OS), and eight in the NMA for progression-free survival (PFS). Lomustine (LOM; also known as CCNU) was the most common comparator and was used as the reference treatment. No studies in the NMA evaluated surgery, re-irradiation, PCV (procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine), TMZ re-challenge or best supportive care. We could not perform NMA for second or later recurrence due to insufficient data. Quality-of-life data were sparse. First recurrence (NMA findings) Median OS across included studies in the NMA ranged from 5.5 to 12.6 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) ranged from 1.5 months to 4.2 months. We found no high-certainty evidence that any treatments tested were better than lomustine. These treatments included the following. Bevacizumab plus lomustine: Evidence suggested probably little or no difference in OS between bevacizumab (BEV) combined with lomustine (LOM) and LOM monotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), although BEV + LOM may improve PFS (HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab monotherapy: Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in OS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76) and PFS (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.38; low-certainty evidence) between BEV and LOM monotherapies; more evidence on BEV is needed. Regorafenib (REG): REG may improve OS compared with LOM (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). Evidence on PFS was very low certainty and more evidence on REG is needed. Temozolomide (TMZ) plus Depatux-M (ABT414): For OS, low-certainty evidence suggested that TMZ plus ABT414 may be more effective than LOM (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.92) and may be more effective than BEV (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89; low-certainty evidence). This may be due to the TMZ component only and more evidence is needed. Fotemustine (FOM): FOM and LOM may have similar effects on OS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.57, low-certainty evidence). Bevacizumab and irinotecan (IRI): Evidence on BEV + irinotecan (IRI) versus LOM for both OS and PFS is very uncertain and there is probably little or no difference between BEV + IRI versus BEV monotherapy (OS: HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; moderate-certainty evidence). When treatments were ranked for OS, FOM ranked first, BEV + LOM second, LOM third, BEV + IRI fourth, and BEV fifth. Ranking does not take into account the certainty of the evidence, which also suggests there may be little or no difference between FOM and LOM. Other treatments Three studies evaluated re-operation versus no re-operation, with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy, and these suggested possible survival advantages with re-operation within the context of being able to select suitable candidates for re-operation. A cannabinoid treatment in the early stages of evaluation, in combination with TMZ, merits further evaluation. Second or later recurrence Limited evidence from three heterogeneous studies suggested that radiotherapy with or without BEV may have a beneficial effect on survival but more evidence is needed. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the best radiotherapy dosage. Other evidence suggested that there may be little difference in survival with tumour-treating fields compared with physician's best choice of treatment. We found no reliable evidence on best supportive care. Severe adverse events (SAEs) The BEV+LOM combination was associated with significantly greater risk of SAEs than LOM monotherapy (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.72 to 3.66, high-certainty evidence), and ranked joint worst with cediranib + LOM (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.90; high-certainty evidence). LOM ranked best and REG ranked second best. Adding novel treatments to BEV was generally associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events compared with BEV alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of first recurrence of GBM, among people previously treated with surgery and standard chemoradiotherapy, the combination treatments evaluated did not improve overall survival compared with LOM monotherapy and were often associated with a higher risk of severe adverse events. Limited evidence suggested that re-operation with or without re-irradiation and chemotherapy may be suitable for selected candidates. Evidence on second recurrence is sparse. Re-irradiation with or without bevacizumab may be of value in selected individuals, but more evidence is needed.

Ranking Preventive Interventions from Different Policy Domains: What Are the Most Cost-Effective Ways to Improve Public Health?

It is widely acknowledged that in order to promote public health and prevent diseases, a wide range of scientific disciplines and sectors beyond the health sector need to be involved. Evidence-based interventions, beyond preventive health interventions targeting disease risk factors and interventions from other sectors, should be developed and implemented. Investing in these preventive health policies is challenging as budgets have to compete with other governmental expenditures. The current study aimed to identify, compare and rank cost-effective preventive interventions targeting metabolic, environmental, occupational and behavioral risk factors. To identify these interventions, a literature search was performed including original full economic evaluations of Western country interventions that had not yet been implemented in the Netherlands. Several workshops were held with experts from different disciplines. In total, 51 different interventions (including 13 cost saving interventions) were identified and ranked based on their incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and potential averted disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), resulting in two rankings of the most cost-effective interventions and one ranking of the 13 cost saving interventions. This approach, resulting in an intersectoral ranking, can assist policy makers in implementing cost-effective preventive action that considers not only the health sector, but also other sectors.

Cost-utility analysis of Palivizumab for Respiratory Syncytial Virus infection prophylaxis in preterm infants: update based on the clinical evidence in Spain

Background

This study aimed at estimating the efficiency of palivizumab in the prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) infection and its sequelae in preterm infants (32^{day 1}-35^{day 0}weeks of gestational age –wGA-) in Spain.

Methods

A decision-tree model was developed to compare health benefits (Quality Adjusted Life Years-QALYs) and costs of palivizumab versus a non-prophylaxis strategy over 6 years. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000 preterm infants, 32^{day 1}-35^{day 0} wGA (4.356 kg average weight) at the beginning of the prophylaxis (15 mg/kg of palivizumab; 3.88 average number of injections per RSV season) was analysed.

The model considered the most recent evidence from Spanish observational and epidemiological studies on RSV infection: the FLIP II study provided hospital admission and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission rates; in-hospital mortality rate was drawn from an epidemiological study from 2004 to 2012; recurrent wheezing rates associated to RSV infection from SPRING study were adjusted by the evidence on the palivizumab effect from clinical trials. Quality of life baseline value, number of hospitalized infants and the presence of recurrent wheezing over time were granted to estimate QALYs.

National Health Service and societal perspective (included also recurrent wheezing indirect cost) were analysed. Total costs (€, 2016) included pharmaceutical and administration costs, hospitalization costs and recurrent wheezing management annual costs. A discount rate of 3.0% was applied annually for both costs and health outcomes.

Results

Over 6 years, the base case analysis showed that palivizumab was associated to an increase of 0.0731 QALYs compared to non-prophylaxis. Total costs were estimated in €2,110.71 (palivizumab) and €671.68 (non-prophylaxis) from the National Health System (NHS) perspective, resulting in an incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) of €19,697.69/QALYs gained (prophylaxis vs non-prophylaxis). Results derived from the risk-factors population subgroups analysed were in line with the total population results. From the societal perspective, the incremental cost associated to palivizumab decreased to an €1,253.14 (ICUR = €17,153.16€/QALYs gained for palivizumab vs non-prophylaxis). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.

Conclusions

The prophylaxis with palivizumab is efficient for preventing from RSV infections in preterm infants 32^{day 1}-35^{day 0} wGA in Spain.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-017-2803-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.

Economics of ramucirumab for metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite its FDA approval and incorporation into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines, ramucirumab (RAM) is associated with a drug acquisition cost that is substantially higher than other approved options. Given its substantial cost, the presence of a viable alternative treatment option, and its minimal survival improvement, the usefulness of RAM in clinical practice has been called into question. Areas covered: In this paper, we outline the cost, benefits, and economic implications of RAM from a US perspective, as it is used in the treatment of mCRC. We also dissect its use in other tumor types and in other healthcare systems around the world, and briefly compare it with similar drugs targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway. We used the search engine PubMed using the following as search terms: cost-effectiveness; ramucirumab; metastatic colon cancer; angiogenesis; and value-based medicine. Expert commentary: The use of ramucirumab in the treatment of mCRC serves as a microcosm of the worsening healthcare crisis within the US and the ongoing controversy regarding oncology drug costs, benefits, and value. Therefore, there must be a joint effort in moving towards value based pricing models.

Improving data collection processes for routine evaluation of treatment cost-effectiveness

The healthcare system in Finland has begun routine collection of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) information for patients in hospitals to support more systematic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This article describes the systematic collection of HRQoL survey data, and addresses challenges in the implementation of patient surveys and acquisition of cost data in the case hospital. Challenges include problems with incomplete data and undefined management processes. In order to support CEA of hospital treatments, improvements are sought from the process management literature and in the observation of healthcare professionals. The article has been written from an information system and process management perspective, concluding that process ownership, automation of data collection and better staff training are keys to generating more reliable data.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of celecoxib versus non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis in Spain: A current perspective]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis in clinical practice in Spain.

METHODS

A decision-tree model using distribution, doses, treatment duration and incidence of GI and CV events observed in the pragmatic PROBE-designed «GI-Reasons» trial was used for cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of event averted and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. QALY were calculated based on utility decrement in case of any adverse events reported in GI-Reasons trial. The National Health System perspective in Spain was applied; cost calculations included current prices of drugs plus cost of adverse events occurred. The analysis was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained and per event averted. One-way and probabilistic analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at current prices, celecoxib treatment had higher overall treatment costs €201 and €157, respectively. However, celecoxib was associated with a slight increase in QALY gain and significantly lower incidence of gastrointestinal events (p<.001), with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €13,286 per QALY gained and €4,471 per event averted. Sensitivity analyses were robust, and confirmed the results of the base case.

CONCLUSION

Celecoxib at current price may be considered as a cost-effective alternative vs. non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis in daily practice in the Spanish NHS.

The quality of reporting methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses in Spain: a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis has been recognized as an important tool to determine the efficiency of healthcare interventions and services. There is a need for evaluating the reporting of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses and establishing their validity. We describe and examine reporting characteristics of methods and results of cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain during more than two decades.

METHODS

A methodological systematic review was conducted with the information obtained through an updated literature review in PubMed and complementary databases (e.g. Scopus, ISI Web of Science, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases from Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Índice Médico Español (IME) Índice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud (IBECS)). We identified cost-effectiveness analyses conducted in Spain that used quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as outcome measures (period 1989-December 2014). Two reviewers independently extracted the data from each paper. The data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 223 studies were included. Very few studies (10; 4.5 %) reported working from a protocol. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) were simulation models and included a median of 1000 patients. Only 105 (47.1 %) studies presented an adequate description of the characteristics of the target population. Most study interventions were categorized as therapeutic (189; 84.8 %) and nearly half (111; 49.8 %) considered an active alternative as the comparator. Effectiveness of data was derived from a single study in 87 (39.0 %) reports, and only few (40; 17.9 %) used evidence synthesis-based estimates. Few studies (42; 18.8 %) reported a full description of methods for QALY calculation. The majority of the studies (147; 65.9 %) reported that the study intervention produced "more costs and more QALYs" than the comparator. Most studies (200; 89.7 %) reported favourable conclusions. Main funding source was the private for-profit sector (135; 60.5 %). Conflicts of interest were not disclosed in 88 (39.5 %) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodological review reflects that reporting of several important aspects of methods and results are frequently missing in published cost-effectiveness analyses. Without full and transparent reporting of how studies were designed and conducted, it is difficult to assess the validity of study findings and conclusions.

Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of dairy products supplemented with vitamin D in prevention of osteoporotic fractures

Background

Dietary sources of calcium and vitamin D are recommended as a first-line strategy in prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures but their public health and economic impact has never been studied.

Methods

We designed a population-based model to forecast the potential health outcomes and medical effectiveness of the daily administration of dairy supplements containing 800 IU of vitamin D and 1 g of calcium in cohorts of subjects, from both genders, aged 50, 60, 70 and 80 years. Annual costs of dairy products were tested at €150, €250 and €350.

Results

In total, the daily intake of vitamin-D rich dairy products reduces by 30,376 and 16,105 events the number of osteoporotic fractures in women and men respectively and permits to gain 6605 and 6144 life-years, in women and men respectively. This intervention is cost-effective from 70 years on in the general population and from 60 years on in patients at increased risk of osteoporotic fractures.

Conclusion

The recommendation to use dairy products as the preferred source of calcium and vitamin D in aging males and females is supported by public health and health economic analyses.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13690-015-0099-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Economic evaluation studies in diagnostic imaging: justification and critical reading]

First, this article describes the concepts and tools most widely used for economic evaluation in healthcare. Second, it discusses some elements that must be taken into account in the social decision about how much we are willing to spend to prolong a person's life by one year. Third, it describes the criteria recommended for the critical analysis of publications that evaluate the economic aspects of health interventions. Finally, several studies about ultrasound screening for aneurysms of the abdominal aorta are used as illustrative examples to show how these elements and criteria can be applied.

Cost-utility analysis of certolizumab pegol versus alternative tumour necrosis factor inhibitors available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

BACKGROUND

Certolizumab pegol, a PEGylated tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor, improves the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when used in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy. This study evaluatedthe cost-utility of certolizumab pegol versusTNF-inhibitors plus methotrexate in the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov cohort health state transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility (costs and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) of certolizumab pegol versus other TNF-inhibitors licensed in Spain in 2009. Efficacy was measured using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 6 months, based on adjusted indirect comparisons from published clinical trials. Utilities were derived from EQ-5D data from certolizumab pegol RA clinical trials. Clinical history and resource use data came from published literature. Unit costs were taken from Spanish databases or published data (cost year 2009). Base case analyses were conducted from the payer perspective, with a lifetime horizon, 3.5 % annual discounting rates for costs and outcomes, and 3 % inflation rate for 2009 onwards. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The average lifetime costs for certolizumab pegol, etanercept, adalimumab (every 2 weeks and weekly) and infliximab (3 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg) in combination with methotrexate were €140,971, €141,197, €139,148, €164,741, €136,961 and €152,561, respectively. The QALYs gained were 6.578, 6.462, 6.430 (for both adalimumab doses), 6.430, and 6.318 (for both infliximab doses), respectively. At a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate dominated adalimumab weekly, etanercept, and infliximab 5 mg/kg, and was cost-effective versus adalimumab every 2 weeks and infliximab 3 mg/kg (all with methotrexate), with estimated ICERs of €12,346/QALY and €15,414/QALY, respectively. Certolizumab pegol monotherapy was more cost-effective versus adalimumab, and less expensive with similar health gains versus etanercept (6.416 QALYs vs 6.492). Univariate analysis showed ICERs to be sensitive to changes in time horizon, ACR response time point, baseline Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, and rate of HAQ-disability index deterioration after discontinuing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that certolizumab pegol is cost-effective compared with other TNF-inhibitors recommended in Spain for the treatment of RA.

Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER).

METHODS

We built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This permits determination of whether an alternative is cost-effective, given a specific threshold (TINB > 0 test). Before validation of the model, the structure of dependence between costs and quality-adjusted life years (QoL) was analysed using copula distributions. The goodness-of-fit of a Spanish prospective observational study (n = 498) was analysed using the Independent, Gaussian, T, Gumbel, Clayton, Frank and Placket copulas. Validation was carried out by simulating a copula distribution with log-normal distribution for costs and gamma distribution for disutilities. Hypothetical cohorts were created by varying the sample size (n: 15-500) and assuming three scenarios (1-cost-effective; 2-non-cost-effective; 3-dominant). The COMER result was compared to the theoretical result according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the INB, assuming a margin of error of 2,000 and 500 monetary units, respectively.

RESULTS

The Frank copula with positive dependence (-0.4279) showed a goodness-of-fit sufficient to represent costs and QoL (p-values 0.524 and 0.808). The theoretical INB was within the 95% confidence interval of the TINB, based on 15 individuals with a probability > 80% for scenarios 1 and 2, and > 90% for scenario 3. The TINB > 0 test with 15 individuals showed p-values of 0.0105 (SD: 0.0411) for scenario 1, 0.613 (SD: 0.265) for scenario 2 and < 0.0001 for scenario 3.

CONCLUSIONS

COMER is a valid tool for combining cost-effectiveness studies and may be of use to health decision makers.

Choice of Fluids in Severe Septic Patients - A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Informed by Recent Clinical Trials

Fluid resuscitation with colloids is an established second line therapy for septic patients. Evidence of relative efficacy outcomes is tempered by considerations of the relative costs of the individual fluids. An assessment of recent large clinical trials was performed, resulting in a ranking in the efficacy of these therapies. Probabilities for mortality and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) were derived and used to inform a decision analysis model comparing the effect of crystalloid, albumin and hydroxyethyl starch solutions in severe septic patients followed from hospital admission to 90 days in intensive care. The US payer perspective was used. Model inputs for costs and efficacy were derived from the peer-reviewed literature, assuming that that all fluid preparations are bio-equivalent within each class of these therapies. Probabilities for mortality and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) data were synthesized using a Bayesian meta-analysis. Relative to crystalloid therapy, 0.21 life years were gained with albumin and 0.85 life years were lost with hydroxyethyl starch. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model's outcomes were sensitive to the cost of RRT but not to the costs of the actual fluids or any other costs. We conclude that albumin may be the most cost-effective treatment in these patients when the total medical costs and iatrogenic morbidities involved in treating sepsis with fluids are considered. These results should assist and inform decision making in the choice of these drugs.

Efficiency of naproxen/esomeprazole in association for osteoarthrosis treatment in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To assess, from the perspective of the National Healthcare System, the efficiency of a fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole (naproxen/esomeprazole) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) compared to other NSAID, alone or in combination with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI).

METHODS

A Markov model was used; it included different health states defined by gastrointestinal (GI) events: dyspepsia, symptomatic or complicated ulcer; or cardiovascular (CV) events: myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure. The model is similar to the one used by NICE in its NSAID evaluation of OA published in 2008. The total costs (€, 2012), including drug and event-related costs, and the health outcomes expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were estimated in patients with increased GI risk, aged 65 or over, for a 1-year time horizon and a 6-month treatment with celecoxib (200mg/day), celecoxib+PPI, diclofenac (150mg/day)+PPI, etoricoxib (60mg/day), etoricoxib+PPI, ibuprofen (1,800mg/day)+PPI, naproxen (1,000mg/day)+PPI or naproxen/esomeprazole (naproxen 1,000mg/esomeprazole 40mg/day). The selected PPI was omeprazole (20mg/day).

RESULTS

Naproxen/esomeprazole was a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) compared to celecoxib, etoricoxib and diclofenac+PPI. Celecoxib+PPI and etoricoxib+PPI were more effective. Considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of €30,000 per additional QALY, naproxen/esomeprazole was cost-effective compared to ibuprofen+PPI and naproxen+PPI with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of €15,154 and €5,202 per additional QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A fixed-dose combination of naproxen and esomeprazole is a cost-effective, and even dominant, alternative compared to other options in OA patients with increased GI risk.

Cost-utility of maximal safe resection of WHO grade II gliomas within eloquent areas

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing use of intraoperative electrical stimulation (IES) mapping for resection of WHO grade II gliomas (GIIG) located within eloquent areas, some authors claim that this is a complex, time-consuming and expensive approach, and not well tolerated by patients, so they rely on other mapping techniques. Here we analyze the health related quality of life, direct and indirect costs of surgeries with and without intraoperative electrical stimulation (IES) mapping for resection of GIIG within eloquent areas.

METHODS

A cohort of 11 subjects with GIIG within eloquent areas who had IES while awake (group A) was matched by tumor side and location to a cohort of 11 subjects who had general anesthesia without IES (group B). Direct and indirect costs (measured as loss of labor productivity) and utility (measured in quality adjusted life years, QALYs), were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Total mean direct costs per patient were $38,662.70 (range $19,950.70 to $61,626.40) in group A, and $32,116.10 (range $22,764.50 to $46,222.50) in group B (p = 0.279). Total mean indirect costs per patient were $10,640.10 (range $3,010.10 to $86,940.70) in group A, and $48,804.70 (range $3,340.10 to $98,400.60) in group B (p = 0.035). Mean costs per QALY were $12,222.30 (range $3,801.10 to $47,422.90) in group A, and $31,927.10 (range $6,642.90 to $64,196.50) in group B (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Asleep-awake-asleep craniotomies with IES are associated with an increase in direct costs. However, these initial expenses are ultimately offset by medium and long-term costs averted from a decrease in morbidity and preservation of the patient's professional life. The present study emphasizes the importance to switch to an aggressive and safer surgical strategy in GIIG within eloquent areas.