Conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials: toward a research consensus

Translating Open-Ended Questions in Cross-Cultural Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Framework

INTRODUCTION

Globalization has increased the importance of multicultural research to address health disparities and improve healthcare outcomes for underrepresented communities. The International Nursing Network for HIV Research (The Network) serves as a platform for researchers to collaborate on cross-cultural and cross-national HIV studies. This article discusses the Network's approach to overcoming barriers in multicultural and multinational research in a qualitative context.

METHODS

The network created a protocol to guide decision-making throughout the translation process of qualitative data collected from participants in their native languages. The protocol includes aspects of why, when, what, who, how, where, and by what means the translation is completed.

RESULTS

The protocol has allowed researchers to enhance the validity, reliability, and cultural sensitivity of translation process, ensuring the clarity and impact of their research findings.

DISCUSSION

Rigorous translation practices promote cross-cultural understanding and respect for participants' perspectives, fostering global collaborations and knowledge exchange.

Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial: rituximab in children and adolescents with B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

OBJECTIVES

The randomized controlled trial Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 showed overall survival (OS) benefit and event-free survival (EFS) benefit with the addition of rituximab to standard Lymphomes Malins B (LMB) chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk, mature B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rituximab-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the French setting.

METHODS

We used a decision-analytic semi-Markov model with four health states and 1-month cycles. Resource use was prospectively collected in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial (NCT01516580). Transition probabilities were assessed from patient-level data from the trial (n = 328). In the base case analysis, direct medical costs from the French National Insurance Scheme and life-years (LYs) were computed in both arms over a 3-year time horizon. Incremental net monetary benefit and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were computed through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and several sensitivity analyses on key assumptions were also conducted, including one exploratory analysis with quality-adjusted life years as the health outcome.

RESULTS

OS and EFS benefits shown in the Inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial translated into the model by rituximab-chemotherapy being the most effective and also the least expensive strategy over the chemotherapy strategy. The mean difference in LYs between arms was 0.13 [95% CI 0.02; 0.25], and the mean cost difference € - 3 710 [95% CI € - 17,877; € 10,525] in favor of rituximab-chemotherapy group. For a € 50,000 per LY willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability of the rituximab-chemotherapy strategy being cost-effective was 91.1%. All sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSION

Adding rituximab to LMB chemotherapy in children and adolescents with high-risk mature B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is highly cost-effective in France.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01516580.

Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh): a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a major burden on patients and health systems. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of routine change of sterile gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure to prevent SSI.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was built to estimate average costs and outcomes of changing gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure compared with current practice. Clinical data were obtained from the ChEETAh trial, a multicentre, cluster-randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and costs were obtained from a study (KIWI) that assessed costs associated with SSIs in LMICs. Outcomes were measured as the percentage of surgeries resulting in SSIs. Costs were measured from a health-care provider perspective and were reported in 2021 US$. The economic analysis used a partially split single-country costing approach, with pooled outcomes data from all seven countries in the ChEETAh trial, and data for resource use and unit costs from India (KIWI); secondary analyses used resource use and costs from Mexico and Ghana (KIWI).

FINDINGS

In the base case, the average cost of the intervention was $259∙92 compared with $261∙10 for current practice (cost difference -$1∙18, 95% CI -4∙08 to 1∙33). In the intervention group, an estimated 17∙6% of patients had an SSI compared with 19∙7% of patients in the current practice group (absolute risk reduction 2∙10%, 95% CI 2∙07-2∙84). At all cost-effectiveness thresholds assumed ($0 to $14 000), the intervention had a higher likelihood of being cost-effective compared with current practice, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Similar results were obtained when the analysis using data from India was repeated using resource use and unit cost data from Mexico and Ghana.

INTERPRETATION

Routine sterile glove and instrument change before abdominal wall closure is effective and the costs are similar to those for current practice. Routine change of gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure should be rolled out in LMICs.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award, NIHR Global Health Research Unit Grant, and Mölnlycke Healthcare.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open pancreatic resections

BACKGROUND

The systematic review is aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open distal pancreatectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched using the PRISMA framework. Studies of adults aged ≥ 18 year comparing laparoscopic and/or robotic versus open DP and/or PD that reported cost of operation or index admission, and cost-effectiveness outcomes were included. The risk of bias of non-randomised studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for randomised studies. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies (152,651 patients) were included in the systematic review and 15 studies in the meta-analysis (3 RCTs; 3 case-controlled; 9 retrospective studies). Of these, 1845 patients underwent MIS (1686 laparoscopic and 159 robotic) and 150,806 patients open surgery. The cost of surgical procedure (SMD 0.89; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.43; I2 = 91%; P = 0.001), equipment (SMD 3.73; 95% CI 1.55 to 5.91; I2 = 98%; P = 0.0008), and operating room occupation (SMD 1.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.24; I2 = 95%; P = 0.03) was higher with MIS. However, overall index hospitalisation costs trended lower with MIS (SMD - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.06; I2 = 80%; P = 0.17). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive major pancreatic surgery entailed higher intraoperative but similar overall index hospitalisation costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With Left Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial

BACKGROUND

The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective.

RESULTS

Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P<0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Cost-effectiveness of implementing a digital psychosocial intervention for patients with psychotic spectrum disorders in low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Europe: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised trial

Background

DIALOG+ is a digital psychosocial intervention aimed at making routine meetings between patients and clinicians therapeutically effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing DIALOG+ treatment for patients with psychotic disorders in five low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Europe alongside a cluster randomised trial.

Methods

Resource use and quality of life data were collected alongside the multi-country cluster randomised trial of 468 participants with psychotic disorders. Due to COVID-19 interruptions of the trial’s original 12-month intervention period, adjusted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at the participant level using a mixed-effects model over the first 6 months only. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with uncertainty presented using a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Seven sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the findings.

Results

The average cost of delivering DIALOG+ was €91.11 per participant. DIALOG+ was associated with an incremental health gain of 0.0032 QALYs (95% CI –0.0015, 0.0079), incremental costs of €84.17 (95% CI –8.18, 176.52), and an estimated ICER of €26,347.61. The probability of DIALOG+ being cost-effective against three times the weighted gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for the five participating countries was 18.9%.

Conclusion

Evidence from the cost-effectiveness analyses in this study suggested that DIALOG+ involved relatively low costs. However, it is not likely to be cost-effective in the five participating countries compared with standard care against a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the weighted GDP per capita per QALY gained.

A Mobile Health Intervention for Patients With Depressive Symptoms: Protocol for an Economic Evaluation Alongside Two Randomized Trials in Brazil and Peru

Background

Mobile health interventions provide significant strategies for improving access to health services, offering a potential solution to reduce the mental health treatment gap. Economic evaluation of this intervention is needed to help inform local mental health policy and program development.

Objective

This paper presents the protocol for an economic evaluation conducted alongside 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a psychological intervention delivered through a technological platform (CONEMO) to treat depressive symptoms in people with diabetes, hypertension, or both.

Methods

The economic evaluation uses a within-trial analysis to evaluate the incremental costs and health outcomes of CONEMO plus enhanced usual care in comparison with enhanced usual care from public health care system and societal perspectives. Participants are patients of the public health care services for hypertension, diabetes, or both conditions in São Paulo, Brazil (n=880) and Lima, Peru (n=432). Clinical effectiveness will be measured by reduction in depressive symptoms and gains in health-related quality of life. We will conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, providing estimates of the cost per at least 50% reduction in 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores, and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. The measurement of clinical effectiveness and resource use will take place over baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up in the intervention and control groups. We will use a mixed costing methodology (ie, a combination of top–down and bottom–up approaches) considering 4 cost categories: intervention (CONEMO related) costs, health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity costs. We will collect unit costs from the RCTs and national administrative databases. The multinational economic evaluations will be fully split analyses with a multicountry costing approach. We will calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and present 95% CIs from nonparametric bootstrapping (1000 replicates). We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we will present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to compare a range of possible cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Results

The economic evaluation project had its project charter in June 2018 and is expected to be completed in September 2021. The final results will be available in the second half of 2021.

Conclusions

We expect to assess whether CONEMO plus enhanced usual care is a cost-effective strategy to improve depressive symptoms in this population compared with enhanced usual care. This study will contribute to the evidence base for health managers and policy makers in allocating additional resources for mental health initiatives. It also will provide a basis for further research on how this emerging technology and enhanced usual care can improve mental health and well-being in low- and middle-income countries.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT12345678 (Brazil) and NCT03026426 (Peru); https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02846662 and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03026426

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26164

Three Versus Six Months of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy for Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Multi-Country Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis.

RESULTS

Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries.

CONCLUSION

This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

Effect of Collaborative Telerehabilitation on Functional Impairment and Pain Among Patients With Advanced-Stage Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Most patients with advanced-stage cancer develop impairment and pain-driven functional losses that jeopardize their independence.

Objective

To determine whether collaborative telerehabilitation and pharmacological pain management improve function, lessen pain, and reduce requirements for inpatient care.

Design, Setting, and Patients

The Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) study was a 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 academic medical centers within 1 health care system. Patient recruitment began in March 2013 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Participants (N = 516) were low-level community or household ambulators with stage IIIC or IV solid or hematologic cancer.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to the (1) control arm, (2) telerehabilitation arm, or (3) telerehabilitation with pharmacological pain management arm. All patients underwent automated function and pain monitoring with data reporting to their care teams. Participants in arms 2 and 3 received 6 months of centralized telerehabilitation provided by a physical therapist-physician team. Those in arm 3 also received nurse-coordinated pharmacological pain management.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blinded assessment of function using the Activity Measure for Postacute Care computer adaptive test, pain interference and average intensity using the Brief Pain Inventory, and quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L was performed at baseline and months 3 and 6. Hospitalizations and discharges to postacute care facilities were recorded.

Results

The study included 516 participants (257 women and 259 men; mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.1] years), with 172 randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Compared with the control group, the telerehabilitation arm 2 had improved function (difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.08-2.35; P = .03) and quality of life (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.071; P = .01), while both telerehabilitation arms 2 and 3 had reduced pain interference (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.09; P = .01 and arm 3, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.10; P = .01), and average intensity (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.07; P = .02 and arm 3, -0.5; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.11; P = .006). Telerehabilitation was associated with higher odds of home discharge in arms 2 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14.3; P = .02) and 3 (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = .03) and fewer days in the hospital in arm 2 (difference, -3.9 days; 95% CI, -2.4 to -4.6; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Collaborative telerehabilitation modestly improved function and pain, while decreasing hospital length of stay and the requirement for postacute care, but these outcomes were not enhanced with the addition of pharmacological pain management.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721343.

Within-Trial Evaluation of Medical Resources, Costs, and Quality of Life Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Participating in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)

OBJECTIVE

To compare medical resource use, costs, and health utilities for 14,752 patients with type 2 diabetes who were randomized to once-weekly exenatide (EQW) or placebo in addition to usual diabetes care in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Medical resource use data and responses to the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) instrument were collected at baseline and throughout the trial. Medical resources and medications were assigned values by using U.S. Medicare payments and wholesale acquisition costs, respectively. Secondary analyses used English costs.

RESULTS

Patients were followed for an average of 3.3 years, during which time those randomized to EQW experienced 0.41 fewer inpatient days (7.05 vs. 7.46 days; relative rate ratio 0.91; P = 0.05). Rates of outpatient medical visits were similar, as were total inpatient and outpatient costs. Mean costs for nonstudy diabetes medications over the study period were ∼$1,600 lower with EQW than with placebo (P = 0.01). Total within-study costs, excluding study medication, were lower in the EQW arm than in the placebo arm ($28,907 vs. $30,914; P ≤ 0.01). When including the estimated cost of EQW, total mean costs were significantly higher in the EQW group than in the placebo group ($42,697 vs. $30,914; P < 0.01). With English costs applied, mean total costs, including exenatide costs, were £1,670 higher in the EQW group than the placebo group (£10,874 vs. £9,204; P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in EQ-5D health utilities between arms over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical costs were lower in the EQW arm than the placebo arm, but total costs were significantly higher once the cost of branded exenatide was incorporated.

Cost-effectiveness of the COPD Patient Management European Trial home-based disease management program

Purpose

Efficient management of COPD represents an international challenge. Effective management strategies within the means of limited health care budgets are urgently required. This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a home-based disease management (DM) intervention vs usual management (UM) in patients from the COPD Patient Management European Trial (COMET).

Methods

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated in 319 intention-to-treat patients over 12 months in COMET. The analysis captured unplanned all-cause hospitalization days, mortality, and quality-adjusted life expectancy. Costs were evaluated from a National Health Service perspective for France, Germany, and Spain, and in a pooled analysis, and were expressed in 2015 Euros (EUR). Quality of life was assessed using the 15D health-related quality-of-life instrument and mapped to utility scores.

Results

Home-based DM was associated with improved mortality and quality-adjusted life expectancy. DM and UM were associated with equivalent direct costs (DM reduced costs by EUR −37 per patient per year) in the pooled analysis. DM was associated with lower costs in France (EUR −806 per patient per year) and Spain (EUR −51 per patient per year), but higher costs in Germany (EUR 391 per patient per year). Evaluation of cost per death avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained showed that DM was dominant (more QALYs and cost saving) in France and Spain, and cost-effective in Germany vs UM. Nonparametric bootstrapping analysis, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 20,000 per QALY gained, indicated that the probability of home-based DM being cost-effective vs UM was 87.7% in France, 81.5% in Spain, and 75.9% in Germany.

Conclusion

Home-based DM improved clinical outcomes at equivalent cost vs UM in France and Spain, and in the pooled analysis. DM was cost-effective in Germany with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 2,541 per QALY gained. The COMET home-based DM intervention could represent an attractive alternative to UM for European health care payers.

Edoxaban therapy increases treatment satisfaction and reduces utilization of healthcare resources: an analysis from the EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) study

Aims

The EdoxabaN vs. warfarin in subjectS UndeRgoing cardiovErsion of atrial fibrillation (ENSURE-AF) (NCT02072434) study was a multicentre prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint evaluation (PROBE) trial comparing edoxaban with enoxaparin/warfarin followed by warfarin alone in 2199 non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients undergoing electrical cardioversion and showed comparable rates of bleeding and thromboembolism between treatments. This prespecified ancillary analysis investigated the impact of edoxaban therapy on treatment satisfaction and utilization of healthcare services.

Methods and results

The Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire (PACT-Q2) was completed by study patients on Day 28 post-cardioversion. Higher scores represent greater satisfaction. Healthcare resource utilizations were collected from randomization to Day 28 post-cardioversion. Data from patients who received at least one dose of study drugs were analysed. Patients treated with edoxaban were more satisfied than enoxaparin/warfarin in both PACT-Q treatment satisfaction and convenience scores (P < 0.001 for both). Differences in treatment satisfaction scores were greater in patients who underwent non-transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE)-guided cardioversion than in patients who underwent TOE-guided cardioversion. Edoxaban was associated with fewer clinic visits (4.75 visits vs. 7.60 visits; P < 0.001) and fewer hospital days (3.43 days vs. 5.41 days; P < 0.05). Rates of hospitalizations and emergency room visits were not significantly different. Overall, edoxaban therapy was estimated to reduce healthcare costs by €107.73, €437.92, €336.75, and $246.32 per patient in German, Spanish, Italian, and US settings, respectively.

Conclusions

The convenience of edoxaban therapy over warfarin in patients undergoing cardioversion may provide greater treatment satisfaction and cost savings to the healthcare system.

Web-based intervention to improve quality of life in late stage bipolar disorder (ORBIT): randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to establish the effectiveness of a novel online quality of life (QoL) intervention tailored for people with late stage (≥ 10 episodes) bipolar disorder (BD) compared with psychoeducation. Relative to early stage individuals, this late stage group may not benefit as much from existing psychosocial treatments. The intervention is a guided self-help, mindfulness based intervention (MBI) developed in consultation with consumers, designed specifically for web-based delivery, with email coaching support.

METHODS/DESIGN

This international RCT will involve a comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two 5-week adjunctive online self-management interventions: Mindfulness for Bipolar 2.0 and an active control (Psychoeducation for Bipolar). A total of 300 participants will be recruited primarily via social media channels. Main inclusion criteria are: a diagnosis of BD (confirmed via a phone-administered structured diagnostic interview), no current mood episode, history of 10 or more mood episodes, no current psychotic features or active suicidality, under the care of a medical practitioner. Block randomisation will be used for allocation to the interventions, and participants will retain access to the program for 6 months. Evaluations will be conducted at pre- and post- treatment, and at 3- and 6- months follow-up. The primary outcome measure will be the Brief Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder Scale (Brief QoL.BD), collected immediately post-intervention at 5 weeks (T1). Secondary measures include BD-related symptoms (mania, depression, anxiety, stress), time to first relapse, functioning, sleep quality, social rhythm stability and resource use. Measurements will be collected online and via telephone assessments at baseline (T0), 5 weeks (T1), three months (T2) and six months (T3). Candidate moderators (diagnosis, anxiety or substance comorbidities, demographics and current treatments) will be investigated as will putative therapeutic mechanisms including mindfulness, emotion regulation and self-compassion. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. Acceptability and any unwanted events (including adverse treatment reactions) will be documented and explored.

DISCUSSION

This definitive trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel QoL focused, mindfulness based, online guided self-help intervention for late stage BD, and investigate its putative mechanisms of therapeutic action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03197974 . Registered 23 June 2017.

Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS)

AIMS

TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents Are Cost-Effective in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: Economic Evaluation of the LEADERS FREE Trial

AIMS

In patients at high risk of bleeding who undergo PCI the biolimus A9 polymer-free drug coated stent (DCS) has superior efficacy and safety compared to a bare metal stent (BMS). We estimated the cost effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Leaders FREE-based economic evaluation estimated service use and quality of life data collected prospectively. The entire trial population was analysed using cost-weights from England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland and Spain. Country-specific QALYs were derived from EQ-5D scores. We estimated cost per event averted and per QALY gained. DCS use resulted in -0.095 cardiac deaths, target vessel MI, stent thrombosis and revascularization per patient (0.152 vs. 0.237;p<0.001). One-year QALYs were non-significantly higher in the DCS group. Total costs for the index admission were similar between groups. One-year costs using cost-weights from each of the 6 countries, including the additional €300 per DCS stent, ranged from €4,664-8,593 for DCS and €4,845-9,742 for BMS and were lower in the DCS group (England:€-428, France:€-137, Germany:€-33, Italy:€-522, Scotland:€-298, Spain:€-854).

CONCLUSIONS

The probability that DCS dominated BMS was >50% in all countries. At a threshold of €10,000 per event averted DCS had a 98% probability of being cost-effective in all 6 countries.

[Economic analysis of multinational clinical trials in oncology]

In oncology, as in other fields of medicine, international multicentre clinical trials came into being so as to include a sufficient number of subjects to investigate a clinical situation. The existence of tight budgetary constraints and the desire to make the best use of the resources available have resulted in the development of economic evaluations associated with these trials, which, thanks to their level of evidence and their size, provide particularly relevant material. Nonetheless, economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials raise specific questions of methodology with regard to both the design and the analysis of the results. Indeed, the costs of goods and services consumed, the types and quantities of resources, and medical practices vary from one country to another and within an individual country. Economic data from the different countries involved must be available so as to study and to take into account this variability, and appropriate techniques for cost estimations and analysis must be implemented to aggregate the results from several countries. From a review of the literature, the aim of this work was to provide an overview of the specific methodological features of economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials: analysis of efficacy data from several countries, collection of resources and real costs, methods to establish the monetary value of resources, methods to aggregate results accounting for the trial effect.

The rationale, design, and methods of a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative telecare in preserving function among patients with late stage cancer and hematologic conditions

Disablement affects over 40% of patients with advanced stage cancer, devastates their quality of life (QoL), and increases their healthcare costs. Proactively treating the causes of disablement; physical impairments, pain, and immobility, can prolong functional independence, improve QoL and, potentially, reduce utilization. However rehabilitation service delivery models are reactive in nature and focus on catastrophic rather than incipient disability. A validated collaborative approach, the Three Component Model (TCM), optimizes important clinical outcomes and may provide an ideal framework to overcome barriers to proactively integrating rehabilitation into cancer care. A novel expansion of the TCM that targets disablement by engaging local physical therapists to address physical impairments and immobility, the TCM-Rehabilitation Services (TCM-RS), benefits and is well received by patients. However, its effectiveness has not been rigorously assessed. The 3-arm randomized COllaborative Care to Preserve PErformance in Cancer (COPE) Trial compared: 1) enhanced usual care, 2) rehabilitation services targeting physical impairments and immobility via the TCM-RS, and 3) TCM-RS plus conventional TCM pain management TCM-RS+Pain. Of the 516 participants, those randomized to arms 2 and 3 underwent an initial 4-week intervention period and were then followed for 6months with remote monitoring and monthly telephone calls. The trial's primary outcome, functional status, and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3, and 6months. Utilization was abstracted from clinical records. By estimating the effectiveness and cost-utility implications of the TCM-RS and TCM-RS+Pain, COPE will inform future delivery research, practice and policy in the means to reduce disablement in chronically diseased populations.

Protocol for an economic evaluation of the randomised controlled trial of culprit lesion only PCI versus immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

INTRODUCTION

Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients' characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country's national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors at www.twitter.com and www.researchgate.net.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01927549; Pre-results.

Challenges from Variation across Regions in Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Multi-Regional Clinical Trials

Economic evaluation in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis has become a popular means to inform decisions in healthcare. With multi-regional clinical trials in a global development program becoming a new venue for drug efficacy testing in recent decades, questions in methods for cost-effectiveness analysis in the multi-regional clinical trials setting also emerge. This paper addresses some challenges from variation across regions in cost effectiveness analysis in multi-regional clinical trials. Several discussion points are raised for further attention and a multi-regional clinical trial example is presented to illustrate the implications in industrial application. A general message is delivered to call for a depth discussion by all stakeholders to reach an agreement on a good practice in cost-effectiveness analysis in the multi-regional clinical trials. Meanwhile, we recommend an additional consideration of cost-effectiveness analysis results based on the clinical evidence from a certain homogeneous population as sensitivity or scenario analysis upon data availability.

Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches

Trial-based economic evaluations are an important aspect of health technology assessment. The availability of patient-level data coupled with unbiased estimates of clinical outcomes means that randomised controlled trials are effective vehicles for the generation of economic data. However there are methodological challenges to trial-based evaluations, including the collection of reliable data on resource use and cost, choice of health outcome measure, calculating minimally important differences, dealing with missing data, extrapolating outcomes and costs over time and the analysis of multinational trials. This review focuses on the state of the art of selective elements regarding the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations. The limitations of existing approaches are detailed and novel methods introduced. The review is internationally relevant but with a focus towards practice in the UK.

Direct Costs of Acute Recurrent and Chronic Pancreatitis in Children in the INSPPIRE Registry

OBJECTIVE

To estimate selected direct medical care costs of children with chronic pancreatitis (CP) and acute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP).

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of data from International Study Group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In Search for a Cure (INSPPIRE), a multinational registry of children with ARP or CP. We determined health care utilization and estimated costs of hospitalizations, surgical and endoscopic procedures, and medications in our study population. Health care utilization data were obtained from all subjects enrolled in the study, and costs were calculated using national United States costs.

RESULTS

We included 224 subjects (median age 12.7 years), 42% of whom had CP. Mean number of hospitalizations, including for surgery and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, was 2.3 per person per year, costing an estimated average $38,755 per person per year. Including outpatient medications, estimated total mean cost was $40,589 per person per year. Subjects using surgical procedures or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography incurred mean annual costs of $42,951 per person and $12,035 per person, respectively. Estimated annual costs of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, diabetic medications, and pain medications were $4114, $1761, and $614 per person, respectively. In an exploratory analysis, patients with the following characteristics appear to accrue higher costs than those without them: more frequent ARP attacks per year, reported constant or episodic pain, family history of pancreatic cancer, and use of pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

ARP and CP are uncommon childhood conditions. The severe burden of disease associated with these conditions and their chronicity results in high health care utilization and costs. Interventions that reduce the need for hospitalization could lower costs for these children and their families.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus bypass surgery from a Dutch perspective

AIMS

Recent cost-effectiveness analyses of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have been limited by a short time horizon or were restricted to the US healthcare perspective. We, therefore, used individual patient-level data from the SYNTAX trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PCI versus CABG from a European (Dutch) perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease were randomised to either CABG (n=897) or PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES; n=903). Costs were estimated for all patients based on observed healthcare resource usage over 5 years of follow-up. Health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on Dutch life-tables was used to extrapolate the 5-year in-trial data to a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were lower for CABG, total initial hospitalisation costs per patient were higher (€17 506 vs €14 037, p<0.001). PCI was more costly during the next 5 years of follow-up, due to more frequent hospitalisations, repeat revascularisation procedures and higher medication costs. Nevertheless, total 5-year costs remained €2465/patient higher with CABG. When the in-trial results were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon, CABG was projected to be economically attractive relative to DES-PCI, with gains in both life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (€5390/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) was favourable and remained <€80 000/QALY in >90% of the bootstrap replicates. Outcomes were similar when incorporating the prognostic impact of non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, as well as across a broad range of assumptions regarding the effect of CABG on post-trial survival and costs. However, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG in patients with a SYNTAX Score ≤22 or in those with left main disease. In patients for whom the SYNTAX Score II favoured PCI based on lower predicted 4-year mortality, PCI was also economically dominant, whereas in those patients for whom the SYNTAX Score II favoured surgery, CABG was highly economically attractive (ICER range, €2967 to €3737/QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

For the broad population with three-vessel or left main disease who are candidates for either CABG or PCI, we found that CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularisation strategy compared with DES-PCI from a Dutch healthcare perspective. The cost-effectiveness of CABG versus PCI differed according to several anatomic factors, however. The newly developed SYNTAX Score II provides enhanced prognostic discrimination in this population, and may be a useful tool to guide resource allocation as well.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinical trial unique identifier: NCT00114972 (http://www.clinical-trials.gov).

Economic Evaluation alongside Multinational Studies: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies

Purpose of the study

This study seeks to explore methods for conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational trials by conducting a systematic review of the methods used in practice and the challenges that are typically faced by the researchers who conducted the economic evaluations.

Methods

A review was conducted for the period 2002 to 2012, with potentially relevant articles identified by searching the Medline, Embase and NHS EED databases. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations conducted alongside a multinational trial.

Results

A total of 44 studies out of a possible 2667 met the inclusion criteria. Methods used for the analyses varied between studies, indicating a lack of consensus on how economic evaluation alongside multinational studies should be carried out. The most common challenge appeared to be related to addressing differences between countries, which potentially hinders the generalisability and transferability of results. Other challenges reported included inadequate sample sizes and choosing cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

It is recommended that additional guidelines be developed to aid researchers in this area and that these be based on an understanding of the challenges associated with multinational trials and the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches. Guidelines should focus on ensuring that results will aid decision makers in their individual countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Patients With 3-Vessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

Background—

The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial demonstrated that in patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)). The long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown.

Methods and Results—

Between 2005 and 2007, 1800 patients with left main or 3-vessel coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=897) or DES-PCI (n=903). Costs were assessed from a US perspective, and health state utilities were evaluated with the EuroQOL questionnaire. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 5-year in-trial data was used to extrapolate costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy over a lifetime horizon. Although initial procedural costs were $3415 per patient lower with CABG, total hospitalization costs were $10 036 per patient higher. Over the next 5 years, follow-up costs were higher with DES-PCI as a result of more frequent hospitalizations, revascularization procedures, and higher medication costs. Over a lifetime horizon, CABG remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per quality-adjusted life-year gained) and remained <$20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year in most bootstrap replicates. Results were consistent across a wide range of assumptions about the long-term effect of CABG versus DES-PCI on events and costs. In patients with left main disease or a SYNTAX score ≤22, however, DES-PCI was economically dominant compared with CABG, although these findings were less certain.

Conclusions—

For most patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, CABG is a clinically and economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with DES-PCI. However, among patients with less complex disease, DES-PCI may be preferred on both clinical and economic grounds.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00114972.

Challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of various interventions for cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVES

Decision analytic modelling is essential in performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of interventions in cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, modelling inherently poses challenges that need to be dealt with since models always represent a simplification of reality. The aim of this study was to identify and explore the challenges in modelling CVD interventions.

METHODS

A document analysis was performed of 40 model-based CEAs of CVD interventions published in high-impact journals. We analysed the systematically selected papers to identify challenges per type of intervention (test, non-drug, drug, disease management programme, and public health intervention), and a questionnaire was sent to the corresponding authors to obtain a more thorough overview. Ideas for possible solutions for the challenges were based on the papers, responses, modelling guidelines, and other sources.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 1,720 potentially relevant articles. Forty authors were identified after screening the most recent 294 papers. Besides the challenge of lack of data, the challenges encountered in the review suggest that it was difficult to obtain a sufficiently valid and accurate cost-effectiveness estimate, mainly due to lack of data or extrapolating from intermediate outcomes. Despite the low response rate of the questionnaire, it confirmed our results.

CONCLUSIONS

This combination of a review and a survey showed examples of CVD modelling challenges found in studies published in high-impact journals. Modelling guidelines do not provide sufficient guidance in resolving all challenges. Some of the reported challenges are specific to the type of intervention and disease, while some are independent of intervention and disease.

Treatment for stable coronary artery disease: a network meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies

Introduction and Objectives

Numerous studies have assessed cost-effectiveness of different treatment modalities for stable angina. Direct comparisons, however, are uncommon. We therefore set out to compare the efficacy and mean cost per patient after 1 and 3 years of follow-up, of the following treatments as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCT): medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without stent (PTCA), with bare-metal stent (BMS), with drug-eluting stent (DES), and elective coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

Methods

RCT comparing at least two of the five treatments and reporting clinical and cost data were identified by a systematic search. Clinical end-points were mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The costs described in the different trials were standardized and expressed in US $ 2008, based on purchasing power parity. A network meta-analysis was used to compare costs.

Results

Fifteen RCT were selected. Mortality and MI rates were similar in the five treatment groups both for 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Weighted cost per patient however differed markedly for the five treatment modalities, at both one year and three years (P<0.0001). MT was the least expensive treatment modality: US $3069 and 13 864 after one and three years of follow-up, while CABG was the most costly: US $27 003 and 28 670 after one and three years. PCI, whether with plain balloon, BMS or DES came in between, but was closer to the costs of CABG.

Conclusions

Appreciable savings in health expenditures can be achieved by using MT in the management of patients with stable angina.

Medical resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: findings from ASCEND-HF

BACKGROUND

The Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) randomly assigned 7,141 participants to nesiritide or placebo. Dyspnea improvement was more often reported in the nesiritide group, but there were no differences in 30-day all-cause mortality or heart failure readmission rates. We compared medical resource use, costs, and health utilities between the treatment groups.

METHODS AND RESULTS

There were no significant differences in inpatient days, procedures, and emergency department visits reported for the first 30 days or for readmissions to day 180. EQ-5D health utilities and visual analog scale ratings were similar at 24 hours, discharge, and 30 days. Billing data and regression models were used to generate inpatient costs. Mean length of stay from randomization to discharge was 8.5 days in the nesiritide group and 8.6 days in the placebo group (P = .33). Cumulative mean costs at 30 days were $16,922 (SD $16,191) for nesiritide and $16,063 (SD $15,572) for placebo (P = .03). At 180 days, cumulative costs were $25,590 (SD $30,344) for nesiritide and $25,339 (SD $29,613) for placebo (P = .58).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of nesiritide contributed to higher short-term costs and did not significantly influence medical resource use or health utilities compared with standard care alone.

Statistical considerations in economic evaluations: a guide for cardiologists

The author reviews statistical methods commonly applied in economic evaluations that rely on individual patient-level data. The paper includes a review of foundational concepts, unique characteristics of health economic data, and methods developed to address them. The paper then highlights issues that should be considered in the interpretation of findings from economic evaluations.

The road not taken: transferability issues in multinational trials

BACKGROUND

National regulatory agencies often have to use cost-effectiveness (CE) data from multinational randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for national decision making on reimbursement of new drugs. We need to make the best use of these patient-level data to obtain estimates of country-specific CE. Several methods, ranging from simple to statistically complex, have existed for years. We investigated which of these methods are used to estimate CE ratios in economic evaluations performed alongside recent, multinational RCTs that enrolled at least 500 patients.

METHODS

In this systematic literature review, studies were classified based on whether resource use, unit costs, health outcomes and utility value sets were obtained from all countries, a subset of countries or one country. We recorded if the study presented trial-wide and country-specific CE results and reported the statistical analyses that were used to estimate them.

RESULTS

We included 21 studies, of which the majority used measurements of health care utilization and health outcomes from all countries to estimate CE. Thirteen studies used a one-country valuation of health care utilization; six used a multi-country valuation. Despite the availability of country-specific utility value sets, none of the studies that presented quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) used multi-country valuation. Valuation of health care utilization and health outcomes was not always consistent within a study: three studies combined a multi-country valuation of health care utilization, with a one-country valuation of health outcomes. Most studies calculated trial-wide CE estimates, while 11 studies calculated country- or region-specific estimates. Thirteen studies used relatively simple methods, which do not take the possible interaction between the country and treatment effect on health care utilization and health outcomes into account. Eight studies used more advanced statistical methods. Three of them used a fixed-effects modeling approach. Five studies explicitly took the hierarchical structure of the data into account, which leads to more appropriate estimates of population average results and associated standard errors. In this way, they help improve transferability of the published results.

CONCLUSION

Based on this systematic review, we concluded that the uptake of more advanced statistical methods has been relatively slow, while simpler naïve methods are still routinely employed.

Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: one-year results from the SYNTAX trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to revascularization for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that, despite higher initial costs, long-term costs with bypass surgery (CABG) in multivessel CAD are similar to those for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of drug-eluting stents (DES) on these results is unknown.

METHODS

The SYNTAX trial randomized 1,800 patients with left main or three-vessel CAD to either CABG (n = 897) or PCI using paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 903). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively for all patients, and cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the perspective of the U.S. healthcare system.

RESULTS

Total costs for the initial hospitalization were $5,693/patient higher with CABG, whereas follow-up costs were $2,282/patient higher with PCI due mainly to more frequent revascularization procedures and higher outpatient medication costs. Total 1-year costs were thus $3,590/patient higher with CABG, while quality-adjusted life expectancy was slightly higher with PCI. Although PCI was an economically dominant strategy for the overall population, cost-effectiveness varied considerably according to angiographic complexity. For patients with high angiographic complexity (SYNTAX score > 32), total 1-year costs were similar for CABG and PCI, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG was $43,486 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with three-vessel or left main CAD, PCI is an economically attractive strategy over the first year for patients with low and moderate angiographic complexity, while CABG is favored among patients with high angiographic complexity.

End point selection in acute decompensated heart failure clinical trials: economic end points

The selection of economic end points in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) clinical trials requires prospectively planned evaluations that are developed in tandem with clinical end points. Integrating economic end points with concrete clinical outcomes postdischarge will provide meaningful data to evaluate a treatment's incremental value in the setting of ADHF.

Resource use and costs of treating acute cough/lower respiratory tract infections in 13 European countries: results and challenges

The objectives of this study were to estimate the resource use and cost of treating acute cough/lower respiratory tract infection (acute cough/LRTI) in 13 European countries, to explore reasons for differences in cost and to document the challenges that researchers face when collecting information on cost alongside multinational studies. Data on resource use and cost were collected alongside an observational study in 14 primary care networks across 13 European countries and a mean cost was generated for each network. The results show that the mean cost (standard deviation) of treating acute cough/LRTI in Europe ranged from euro23.88 (34.67) in Balatonfüred (Hungary) to euro116.47 (34.29) in Jonkoping (Sweden). The observed differences in costs were statistically significant (P < 0.01). Major cost drivers include general practitioner visits and drug costs in all networks, whilst differences in health systems and regional factors could account for differences in cost between networks. The major barrier to conducting multinational cost studies are barriers associated with identifying cost information.

Regression models for analyzing costs and their determinants in health care: an introductory review

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to describe the various approaches in multivariable modelling of healthcare costs data and to synthesize the respective criticisms as proposed in the literature.

METHODS

We present regression methods suitable for the analysis of healthcare costs and then apply them to an experimental setting in cardiovascular treatment (COSTAMI study) and an observational setting in diabetes hospital care.

RESULTS

We show how methods can produce different results depending on the degree of matching between the underlying assumptions of each method and the specific characteristics of the healthcare problem.

CONCLUSIONS

The matching of healthcare cost models to the analytic objectives and characteristics of the data available to a study requires caution. The study results and interpretation can be heavily dependent on the choice of model with a real risk of spurious results and conclusions.

Economic evaluation of caffeine for apnea of prematurity

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment with caffeine compared with placebo for apnea of prematurity in infants with birth weights less than 1250 g, from birth through 18 to 21 months' corrected age.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective economic evaluation of the cost per survivor without neurodevelopmental impairment by using individual-patient data from the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity clinical trial (N = 1869). We included direct medical costs either to the insurance payer or the hospital but excluded costs to parents and society, such as lost productivity. We used a price of $0.21/mg of generic caffeine citrate for our base-case analysis. All costs were expressed in 2008 Canadian dollars and discounted at 3%. The time horizon for this analysis extended through 18 to 21 months' corrected age to match the clinical trial.

RESULTS

The mean cost per infant was $124 466 in the caffeine group and $133 505 in the placebo group (difference: $9039 [-14 749 to -3375]; adjusted P = .014). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed caffeine to be a dominant or "win-win" therapy: in >99% of 1000 bootstrap replications of the analysis, caffeine-treated infants had simultaneously better outcomes and lower mean costs. These results were robust to a 1000% increase in the individual resource items, including the price of caffeine citrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity in infants weighing less than 1250 g is economically appealing for infants up to 18 to 21 months' corrected age.

Novel approaches to incorporating pharmacoeconomic studies into phase III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease

The societal and individual costs of Alzheimer's disease are significant, worldwide. As the world ages, these costs are increasing rapidly, while health systems face finite budgets. As a result, many regulators and payers will require or at least consider phase III cost-effectiveness data (in addition to safety and efficacy data) for drug approval and reimbursement, increasing the risks and costs of drug development. Incorporating pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease presents a number of challenges. We propose several specific suggestions to improve the design of pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials. We propose that acute episodes of care are key outcome measures for pharmacoeconomic studies. To improve the possibility of detecting a pharmacoeconomic impact in phase III, we suggest several strategies including; study designs for enrichment of pharmacoeconomic outcomes that include co-morbidity of patients; reducing variability of care that can affect pharmacoeconomic outcomes through standardized care management; employing administrative claims data to better capture meaningful pharmacoeconomic data; and extending clinical trials in open label follow-up periods in which pharmacoeconomic data are captured electronically by administrative claims. Specific aspects of power analysis for pharmacoeconomic studies are presented. The particular pharmacoeconomic challenges caused by the use of biomarkers in clinical trials, the increasing use of multinational studies, and the pharmacoeconomic challenges presented by biologicals in development for Alzheimer's disease are discussed. In summary, since we are entering an era in which pharmacoeconomic studies will be essential in drug development for supporting regulatory approval, payor reimbursement and integration of new therapies into clinical care, we must consider the design and incorporation of pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials more seriously and more creatively.

An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial

Aims

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10 mg rosuvastatin daily for older patients with systolic heart failure in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Study in Heart Failure (CORONA) trial.

Methods and results

This within trial analysis of CORONA used major cardiovascular (CV) events as the outcome measure. Resource use was valued and the costs of hospitalizations, procedures, and statin use compared. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as cost per major CV event avoided. There were significantly fewer major CV events in the rosuvastatin group compared with the placebo group (1.04 vs. 1.20 per patient; difference 0.164; 95% CI: 0.075–0.254, P < 0.001). The average cost of CV hospitalizations and procedures was significantly lower for those receiving rosuvastatin (£1531 vs. £1769; difference £238; 95% CI: £73–403, P = 0.005); the additional cost of the statin resulted in significantly higher total costs for the rosuvastatin group (£1769 vs. £2072; difference £303; 95% CI: £138–468, P < 0.001). Overall, rosuvastatin was found to cost £1840 (95% CI: £562–6028) per major CV event avoided.

Conclusion

This economic analysis showed that a significant reduction in major CV events with rosuvastatin led to significantly reduced costs of CV hospitalizations and procedures. The reduction in associated costs for major CV events was found to offset partially (by 44%) the cost of rosuvastatin treatment in patients with systolic heart failure.

The multinational nature of cost-effectiveness analyses alongside multinational clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

Applied and methodological evidence to the conduct of economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials have appeared in the literature over the last decade. Nevertheless, little is known about the number and identity of countries participating in these studies. A structured review was carried out to assess the reporting of the multinational nature of these studies.

METHODS

A structured review was conducted by using online databases from January 1996 to December 2007. Articles were included if they reported cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multinational randomized trial with individual patient-level data on resource use and outcome in more than one country. Key data extracted included country information, sample size, unit cost collection, methods to calculate costs and effects, and the reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies out of a total of 591 articles identified in the original search fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Information about countries participating in the trial was not reported in 16 (26%) of the 65 studies. The overall sample size from all the randomized controlled trials identified was estimated to be 172,401 patients. Country-specific sample size was reported for 74,852 (43%) of the patients, but the country contribution was unknown for 97,549 (57%) of the participants.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of the multinational nature of these studies is currently inadequate. Therefore, future guidelines of transferability of economic evaluations across settings should emphasize the importance of reporting the number and identity of countries and their contribution to the overall sample size in cost-effectiveness analyses alongside multinational clinical trials.

The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments

Evidence produced by multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness studies is often used to inform decisions concerning the adoption of new healthcare technologies. A key issue relating to the use of this type of evidence is the extent to which trial-wide economic results are applicable to every single country participating in the study. We consider what role cost-effectiveness analysis alongside multinational trials should have in assisting reimbursement decisions at jurisdiction and national levels. Using the proposed framework as a benchmark to evaluate their relative pros and cons, we then describe and review the statistical approaches used in the multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness literature. The results of the review are used to define the desirable characteristics a statistical method for the analysis of data collected from different jurisdictions should have in order to be consistent with the proposed framework. It is argued that Bayesian hierarchical models that use both patient- and country-level information are the most appropriate tool to analyse multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness data and facilitate the between-country generalizability assessment of the study findings. The merits of each approach are discussed, highlighting problems and limitations, in order to identify areas of future research.

Cost effectiveness of enoxaparin in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) study

OBJECTIVES

We used a U.S. model of health care costs to examine the cost effectiveness of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) as adjunctive therapy for fibrinolysis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

The ExTRACT-TIMI 25 (Enoxaparin and Thrombolysis Reperfusion for Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 25) study, a large, randomized, multinational trial, demonstrated a reduction in death or nonfatal myocardial infarction when enoxaparin was used instead of UFH as adjunctive therapy for fibrinolysis in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

We used patient-level clinical outcomes and resource use from the ExTRACT-TIMI 25 trial and estimates of life expectancy gains as a result of the prevention of the clinical events on the basis of the Framingham Heart Study.

RESULTS

Index hospitalization costs trended lower by $126 in the enoxaparin group (95% confidence interval [CI]: -$295 to $49). Thirty-day costs trended higher by $102 for enoxaparin (95% CI: $108 to $314). Patients receiving enoxaparin gained an average of 0.12 life-years relative to patients given UFH. Estimated total lifetime costs were $1,207 higher in the enoxaparin group (95% CI: $491 to $1,923). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enoxaparin compared with UFH was $5,700 per life-year gained, with 99.9% of bootstrap-derived estimates <$50,000 per life-year gained. Using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there is a 90% probability that enoxaparin is cost effective for lifetime, provided that the willingness-to-pay value exceeds $50,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a U.S. model of health care economics, the strategy of using enoxaparin instead of UFH as adjunctive therapy for fibrinolysis in patients with STEMI is cost effective according to commonly used benchmarks.

The treatment of challenging behaviour in intellectual disabilities: cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are used in the routine treatment of adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) and challenging behaviour in the UK despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. There is no evidence on their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

The relative cost-effectiveness of risperidone, haloperidol and placebo in treating individuals with an ID and challenging behaviour was compared from a societal perspective in a 26-week, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were changes in aggression and quality of life. Costs measured all service impacts and unpaid caregiver inputs.

RESULTS

After 26 weeks, patients randomised to placebo had lower costs compared with those in the risperidone and haloperidol treatment groups. Aggression was highest for patients treated with risperidone and lowest for patients treated with haloperidol; however, quality of life was lowest for patients treated with haloperidol and highest for patients treated with risperidone.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of challenging behaviour in ID with antipsychotic drugs is not a cost-effective option.

Economic impact of angina after an acute coronary syndrome: insights from the MERLIN-TIMI 36 trial

BACKGROUND

Angina in patients with coronary artery disease is associated with worse quality of life; however, the relationship between angina frequency and resource utilization is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using data from the MERLIN-TIMI 36 trial, we assessed the association between the extent of angina after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and subsequent cardiovascular resource utilization among 5460 stable outpatients who completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at 4 months after an ACS and who were then followed for an additional 8 months. Angina frequency was categorized as none (score, 100; 2739 patients), monthly (score, 61 to 99; 1608 patients), weekly (score, 31 to 60; 854 patients), and daily (score, 0 to 30; 259 patients). Multivariable regression models evaluated the association between angina frequency and overall costs attributable to cardiovascular hospitalizations, outpatient visits and procedures, and medications. As compared with no angina, overall costs increased in a graded fashion with higher angina frequency-no angina, $2928 (reference); monthly angina, $3909 (adjusted relative cost ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.39); weekly angina, $4558 (adjusted relative cost ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.48 to 1.67); and daily angina, $6949 (adjusted relative cost ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 2.01 to 2.69; P for trend <0.001). Differences in costs were attributable primarily to higher rates of ACS hospitalization and coronary revascularization among patients with more severe angina.

CONCLUSIONS

Among stable outpatients after ACS, a direct graded relationship was found between higher angina frequency and healthcare costs. As compared with patients without angina, patients with daily angina had a >2-fold increase in resource utilization and incremental costs of $4000 after 8 months of follow-up.