TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Cost-effectiveness comparison of dalpiciclib and abemaciclib combined with an aromatase inhibitor as first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

CDK4/6 inhibitors dalpiciclib and abemaciclib have been approved by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration as first-line treatment for postmenopausal females with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dalpiciclib plus letrozole/anastrozole (non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor [NSAI]) compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI as a first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- ABC in China.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model with three health states to evaluate health and economic outcomes of first-line treatment with dalpiciclib plus NSAI and abemaciclib plus NSAI for HR+/HER2- ABC. Efficacy data was obtained from MONARCH3 and DAWNA-2 trials. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI, dalpiciclib plus NSAI resulted in 4.27 additional QALYs, with an ICER of $14827.4/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times gross domestic product per capita in China for 2023 ($37721.5/QALY), the cost-effectiveness probability of dalpiciclib plus NSAI was 77.42%.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of Chinese payers, dalpiciclib plus NSAI appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared with abemaciclib plus NSAI for the first-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- ABC in China.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

MONARCH3, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT02246621 and DAWNA-2, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03966898.

Multimorbidity healthcare expenditure in Belgium: a 4-year analysis (COMORB study)

BACKGROUND

The complex management of health needs in multimorbid patients, alongside limited cost data, presents challenges in developing cost-effective patient-care pathways. We estimated the costs of managing 171 dyads and 969 triads in Belgium, taking into account the influence of morbidity interactions on costs.

METHODS

We followed a retrospective longitudinal study design, using the linked Belgian Health Interview Survey 2018 and the administrative claim database 2017-2020 hosted by the Intermutualistic Agency. We included people aged 15 and older, who had complete profiles (N = 9753). Applying a system costing perspective, the average annual direct cost per person per dyad/triad was presented in 2022 Euro and comprised mainly direct medical costs. We developed mixed models to analyse the impact of single chronic conditions, dyads and triads on healthcare costs, considering two-/three-way interactions within dyads/triads, key cost determinants and clustering at the household level.

RESULTS

People with multimorbidity constituted nearly half of the study population and their total healthcare cost constituted around three quarters of the healthcare cost of the study population. The most common dyad, arthropathies + dorsopathies, with a 14% prevalence rate, accounted for 11% of the total national health expenditure. The most frequent triad, arthropathies + dorsopathies + hypertension, with a 5% prevalence rate, contributed 5%. The average annual direct costs per person with dyad and triad were €3515 (95% CI 3093-3937) and €4592 (95% CI 3920-5264), respectively. Dyads and triads associated with cancer, diabetes, chronic fatigue, and genitourinary problems incurred the highest costs. In most cases, the cost associated with multimorbidity was lower or not substantially different from the combined cost of the same conditions observed in separate patients.

CONCLUSION

Prevalent morbidity combinations, rather than high-cost ones, made a greater contribution to total national health expenditure. Our study contributes to the sparse evidence on this topic globally and in Europe, with the aim of improving cost-effective care for patients with diverse needs.

A Trial-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Optimization Intervention Versus Standard Care in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Older adults are at greater risk of medication-related harm than younger adults. The Integrated Medication Management model is an interdisciplinary method aiming to optimize medication therapy and improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of a medication optimization intervention compared to standard care in acutely hospitalized older adults.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis including 285 adults aged ≥ 70 years was carried out alongside the IMMENSE study. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Health State Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Patient-level data for healthcare use and costs were obtained from administrative registers, taking a healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated for a 12-month follow-up and compared to a societal willingness-to-pay range of €/QALY 27,067-81,200 (NOK 275,000-825,000). Because of a capacity issue in a primary care resulting in extended hospital stays, a subgroup analysis was carried out for non-long and long stayers with hospitalizations < 14 days or ≥ 14 days.

RESULTS

Mean QALYs were 0.023 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.022-0.025] higher and mean healthcare costs were €4429 [95% CI - 1101 to 11,926] higher for the intervention group in a full population analysis. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €192,565/QALY. For the subgroup analysis, mean QALYs were 0.067 [95% CI 0.066-0.070, n = 222] and - 0.101 [95% CI - 0.035 to 0.048, n = 63] for the intervention group in the non-long stayers and long stayers, respectively. Corresponding mean costs were €- 824 [95% CI - 3869 to 2066] and €1992 [95% CI - 17,964 to 18,811], respectively. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers with a probability of cost effectiveness of 93.1-99.2% for the whole willingness-to-pay range and 67.8% at a zero willingness to pay. Hospitalizations were the main cost driver, and readmissions contributed the most to the cost difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

According to societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, the medication optimization intervention was not cost effective compared to standard care for the full population. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers, with a high probability of cost effectiveness.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The IMMENSE trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 June, 2016 before enrolment started (NCT02816086).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nirsevimab and maternal RSVpreF vaccine strategies for prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus disease among infants in Canada: a simulation study

Background

The cost-effectiveness of immunisation strategies with a long-acting monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) and/or a protein-based maternal vaccine (RSVpreF) for protecting infants from Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)-associated illness has not been previously determined for Canada. We estimated the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of nirsevimab for immunising the entire birth cohort, regardless of gestational age or other risk factors. Additionally, we evaluated the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a combined strategy of year-round vaccination of pregnant women with RSVpreF and immunisation of infants at high risk, including those born preterm or with chronic conditions, with nirsevimab during the RSV season.

Methods

We developed a discrete-event simulation model, parameterized with the data on medically-attended RSV infections among infants under one year of age from 2010 to 2019, including outpatient care, hospitalisations, and deaths. Intervention scenarios targeting twelve monthly birth cohorts and pregnant women, reflecting the 2021 census data for Ontario, Canada were evaluated over a follow-up time horizon of one year from birth. Taking into account the costs (in 2023 Canadian dollars) associated with RSV-related outcomes, we calculated the net monetary benefit using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Further, we determined the range of price-per-dose (PPD) for nirsevimab and RSVpreF within which the program was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from both healthcare and societal perspectives.

Findings

Using a willingness-to-pay of CAD$50,000 per QALY gained, we found that immunising the entire birth cohort with nirsevimab would be cost-effective from a societal perspective for a PPD of up to $290, with an annual budget impact of $83,978 for 1113 infants per 100,000 population. An alternative, combined strategy of vaccinating pregnant women and immunising only infants at high risk of severe disease would lead to a lower budget impact of $49,473 per 100,000 population with a PPD of $290 and $195 for nirsevimab and RSVpreF vaccine, respectively. This combined strategy would reduce infant mortality by 76%-85%, comparable to a 78% reduction achieved through a nirsevimab-only program of the entire birth cohort. The PPD for cost-effective programs with nirsevimab was sensitive to the target population among infants.

Interpretation

Passive immunisation of infants under 6 months of age with nirsevimab and vaccination of pregnant women with RSVpreF could be a cost-effective strategy for protecting infants during their first RSV season.

Funding

This study was supported by the Canadian Immunisation Research Network (CIRN) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Seyed M. Moghadas acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (MfPH and Discovery grants). Alison P. Galvani acknowledges support from the The Notsew Orm Sands Foundation.

A cluster randomised controlled trial, process and economic evaluation of quality improvement collaboratives aligned to a national audit to improve the care for people with diabetes (EQUIPD): study protocol

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes and raised glucose levels are at greater risk of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, sexual health problems and foot disease. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends continuous subcutaneous 'insulin pump' therapy for people with type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c is above 69 mmol/mol. Insulin pump use can improve quality of life, cut cardiovascular risk and increase treatment satisfaction. About 90,000 people in England and Wales meet NICE criteria for insulin pumps but do not use one. Insulin pump use also varies markedly by deprivation, ethnicity, sex and location. Increasing insulin pump use is a key improvement priority. Audit and feedback is a common but variably effective intervention. Limited capabilities of healthcare providers to mount effective responses to feedback from national audits, such as the National Diabetes Audit (NDA), undermines efforts to improve care. We have co-developed a theoretically and empirically informed quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to strengthen local responses to feedback with patients and carers, national audits and healthcare providers. We will evaluate whether the QIC improves the uptake of insulin pumps following NDA feedback.

METHODS

We will undertake an efficient cluster randomised trial using routine data. The QIC will be delivered alongside the NDA to specialist diabetes teams in England and Wales. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes and an HbA1c above 69 mmol/mol who start and continue insulin pump use during the 18-month intervention period. Secondary outcomes will assess change in glucose control and duration of pump use. Subgroup analyses will explore impacts upon inequalities by ethnicity, sex, age and deprivation. A theory-informed process evaluation will explore diabetes specialist teams' engagement, implementation, fidelity and tailoring through observations, interviews, surveys and documentary analysis. An economic evaluation will micro-cost the QIC, estimate cost-effectiveness of NDA feedback with QIC and estimate the budget impact of NHS-wide QIC roll out.

DISCUSSION

Our study responds to a need for more head-to-head trials of different ways of reinforcing feedback delivery. Our findings will have implications for other large-scale audit and feedback programmes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN82176651 Registered 18 October 2022.

The cost-effectiveness of a nursing home-based transitional care unit for increasing the potential for independent living in the community among hospitalized older adults

OBJECTIVE

In Canada, a persistent barrier to achieving healthcare system efficiency has been patient days accumulated by individuals with an alternate level of care (ALC) designation. Transitional care units (TCUs) may address the capacity pressures associated with ALC. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of a nursing home (NH) based TCU leveraging existing infrastructure to support a hospitalized older adult's transition to independent living at home.

METHODS

This case-control study included frail, older adults who received care within a function-focused TCU following a hospitalization between 1 March 2018 and 30 June 2019. TCU patients were propensity score matched to hospitalized ALC patients ("usual care"). The primary outcome was days without requiring institutional care six months following discharge, defined as institutional-free days. This was calculated by excluding all days in hospitals, rehabilitation facilities, complex continuing care facilities and NHs. Using the total direct cost of care up to discharge from TCU or hospital, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated.

RESULTS

TCU patients spent, on average, 162.0 days institution-free (95% CI: 156.3-167.6d) within six months days post-discharge, while usual care patients spent 140.6 days institution-free (95% CI: 132.3-148.8d). TCU recipients had a lower total cost of care, by CAN$1,106 (95% CI: $-6,129-$10,319), due to the reduced hospital length of stay (mean [SD] 15.6d [13.3d] for TCU patients and 28.6d [67.4d] days for usual care). TCU was deemed the more cost-effective model of care.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation was the potential inclusion of patients not eligible for SAFE in our usual group. To minimize this selection bias, we expanded the geographical pool of ALC patients to patients with SAFE admission potential in other area hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Through rehabilitative and restorative care, TCUs can reduce hospital length of stay, increase potential for independent living, and reduce risk for subsequent institutionalization.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.

EXPOSURES

Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).

RESULTS

The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Estimated Public Health Impact in California

IMPORTANCE

Despite widespread vaccination against COVID-19 in the United States, there are limited empirical data quantifying their public health impact in the population.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths directly averted because of COVID-19 vaccination in California.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This modeling study used person-level data provided by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) on COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths as well as COVID-19 vaccine administration from January 1, 2020, to October 16, 2021. A statistical model was used to estimate the number of COVID-19 cases that would have occurred in the vaccine era (November 29, 2020, to October 16, 2021) in the absence of vaccination based on the ratio of the number of cases among the unvaccinated (aged <12 years) and vaccine-eligible groups (aged ≥12 years) before vaccine introduction. Vaccine-averted COVID-19 cases were estimated by finding the difference between the projected and observed number of COVID-19 cases. Averted COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths were assessed by applying estimated hospitalization and case fatality risks to estimates of vaccine-averted COVID-19 cases. As a sensitivity analysis, a second independent model was developed to estimate the number of vaccine-averted COVID-19 outcomes by applying published data on vaccine effectiveness to data on COVID-19 vaccine administration and estimated risk of COVID-19 over time.

EXPOSURE

COVID-19 vaccination.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths estimated to have been averted because of COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

There were 4 585 248 confirmed COVID-19 cases, 240 718 hospitalizations, and 70 406 deaths in California from January 1, 2020, to October 16, 2021, during which 27 164 680 vaccine-eligible individuals aged 12 years and older were reported to have received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the vaccine era (79.5% of the eligible population). The primary model estimated that COVID-19 vaccination averted 1 523 500 (95% prediction interval [PI], 976 800-2 230 800) COVID-19 cases in California, corresponding to a 72% (95% PI, 53%-91%) relative reduction in cases because of vaccination. COVID-19 vaccination was estimated to have averted 72 930 (95% PI, 53 250-99 160) hospitalizations and 19 430 (95% PI, 14 840-26 230) deaths during the study period. The alternative model identified comparable findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study provides evidence of the public health benefit of COVID-19 vaccination in the United States and further supports the urgency for continued vaccination.