The QALY is ableist: on the unethical implications of health states worse than dead

Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS

NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.

Measuring Quality-weighted Hospital-Free Days in Acute Respiratory Failure: A Modified Delphi Study

Rationale: Hospital-free days (HFDs), a measure of the number of days alive spent outside the hospital, is increasingly used as an endpoint in studies of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) or other critical and serious illnesses. Current approaches to measuring HFDs do not account for decrements in functional status or quality of life that ARF survivors and family members value. Objectives: To develop an acceptable approach to measure quality-weighted HFDs using patient-reported outcomes. Methods: We conducted a four-round modified Delphi process among ARF experts: those with lived or professional experience. Experts rated survivorship domains, instrument and data collection characteristics, and methods to translate responses into quality-weighted HFDs. The consensus threshold was that ⩾70% of respondents rated an item "totally acceptable" or "acceptable" and ⩽15% of respondents rated the item "totally unacceptable," "unacceptable," or "slightly unacceptable." Results: Fifty-seven experts participated in round 1. Response rates were 82-93% for subsequent rounds. Priority survivorship domains were physical function and health-related quality of life. Participants reached a consensus that data collection during ARF recovery should take less than 15 minutes per assessment, allow surrogate completion when patients are unable, and continue for at least 24 months of follow-up. Using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire to quality weight HFDs met consensus criteria for acceptability. A majority of panelists preferred quality-weighted HFDs to unweighted HFDs or survival for use in future ARF studies. Conclusions: Quality-weighting HFDs using patient and/or surrogate responses to the EQ-5D captured stakeholder priorities and was acceptable to this Delphi panel.

Logical Inconsistencies in the Health Years in Total and Equal Value of Life-Years Gained

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess whether recently proposed alternatives to the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), intended to address concerns about discrimination, are suitable for informing resource allocation decisions.

METHODS

We consider 2 alternatives to the QALY: the health years in total (HYT), recently proposed by Basu et al, and the equal value of life-years gained (evLYG), currently used by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. For completeness we also consider unweighted life-years (LYs). Using a hypothetical example comparing 3 mutually exclusive treatment options, we consider how calculations are performed under each approach and whether the resulting rankings are logically consistent. We also explore some further challenges that arise from the unique properties of the HYT approach.

RESULTS

The HYT and evLYG approaches can result in logical inconsistencies that do not arise under the QALY or LY approaches. HYT can violate the independence of irrelevant alternatives axiom, whereas the evLYG can produce an unstable ranking of treatment options. HYT have additional issues, including an implausible assumption that the utilities associated with health-related quality of life and LYs are "separable," and a consideration of "counterfactual" health-related quality of life for patients who are dead.

CONCLUSIONS

The HYT and evLYG approaches can result in logically inconsistent decisions. We recommend that decision makers avoid these approaches and that the logical consistency of any approaches proposed in future be thoroughly explored before considering their use in practice.

This Dead or That Dead: Framing Effects in the Evaluation of Health States

OBJECTIVES

Current approaches to health state valuation rely on credible classification of states as either "better than dead" or "worse than dead" (WTD). We investigate how such evaluations of health states are affected by the framing in pairwise comparison tasks.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey with 361 participants to compare the propensity to evaluate a state as WTD under 6 frames: (A) using a regular time trade-off (TTO) choice task, (B) using a lead-time TTO choice task, (C) excluding the immediacy of death, (D) avoiding reference to the process of dying, (E) focusing on longevity, and (F) focusing on improvements in quality of life. Each participant evaluated 9 EQ-5D-5L health states using 3 frames. The frames were compared using several statistical approaches to confirm robustness to indirect comparisons or respondent heterogeneity and inattentiveness.

RESULTS

The odds of a state being evaluated as WTD, compared with frame A, increase 2.7-fold and 1.5-fold in frame B and E, respectively, and decrease >5-fold in frame F. Frames C and D do not differ significantly from frame A.

CONCLUSIONS

Different framings for questions about whether a state is WTD or better than dead, even if theoretically equivalent, yield substantially different results. Notably, whether a state is evaluated as WTD differs greatly between the regular TTO and lead-time TTO choice tasks and when either final outcomes or improvements over time are considered.

What if 0 is not equal to 0? Inter-personal health utilities anchoring using the largest health gains

Prioritizing health technologies requires comparisons of improvements in longevity or quality of life (QoL), or both. For this purpose, value sets are constructed that contain weights assigned to health states based on societal preferences. I show that how this is typically done may distort the results by giving unjustifiably larger impact to individuals who prioritize improvements in QoL over longevity. The problem results from equating the utility differences between being dead and full health across people, ignoring the fact that interpersonal utility comparisons are forbidden (or at least problematic) in economics. I propose another approach: the numerical value of maximal health gain (either in longevity or QoL) is assumed to be equal across individuals, to remove the impact of the range of utilities differing between people. I test this approach using EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L utilities elicited in Poland for two modeling techniques: a simple econometric model and a Bayesian one that accounts for censoring. The proposed approach increases the utilities of the worst health state: from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] in EQ-5D-5L and from about [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] in EQ-5D-3L. In the Bayesian approach, the impact is greater: from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] for EQ-5D-5L and from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] for EQ-5D-3L. I discuss some normative arguments why the proposed approach may be more justifiable for aggregating individual preferences for health outcomes.

Censoring Time Trade-off Values at 0 Versus at -1: How Does the Assumption for Worse-Than-Dead Time Trade-off Values Affect the Modeling of EQ-5D-5L Valuation Data?

OBJECTIVES

A recent study found that negative utility values elicited using composite time trade-off (TTO) were barely associated with the severity of EQ-5D-5L health states, suggesting poor discriminative ability. Assuming negative values provide limited information, this study aimed to explore the usefulness of censoring negative TTO values at 0 in modeling EQ-5D-5L valuation data.

METHODS

We analyzed EQ-5D-5L valuation data from China, The Netherlands, Canada, Singapore, and Thailand. For each data set, we estimated value sets using 2 Tobit models, one left-censored at -1 (current practice) and one left-censored at 0 (our proposed method), and compared the model performances. We hypothesized that censoring at 0 and censoring at -1 would produce similar values, though on slightly different scales.

RESULTS

When censoring at 0, logical inconsistencies and statistical significance were improved but the value range was compressed. In the cross-attribute level effects model, the 3-level parameters were similar between the models censored at 0 and -1, but the rank order of some dimension parameters was altered. Health state values predicted by the 2 censoring models approximated a perfect agreement after rescaling.

CONCLUSIONS

Censoring TTO values at 0 improved model estimation and fit but produced higher utility values than models censoring at -1. Investigators of future EQ-5D value set studies using the composite TTO method are advised to examine the validity of negative TTO values before choosing modeling strategies.