The History and Future of the "ISPOR Value Flower": Addressing Limitations of Conventional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Comparing Preferences for Disease Profiles: A Discrete Choice Experiment from a US Societal Perspective

OBJECTIVES

There is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent of respondents (n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18-54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56-2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47-2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Of disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.

Addressing the distributional consequences of spillovers in health economic evaluation: A prioritarian approach

Health spillovers arise when an individual's serious illness affects those close to them emotionally, psychologically, and/or physically. As a result, healthcare interventions that improve the lives of patients may also confer wider health benefits. However, contrary to widespread calls for health spillovers to be included in health economic evaluation, others have argued this could have adverse distributional consequences and equity implications. This paper presents a novel approach to spillover inclusion in health economic evaluation using a 'prioritarian transformation' of health gains that allows these equity concerns to be addressed. Affording greater weight to the incremental change in patient outcomes when incorporating carer/family health spillovers into resource allocation decisions, the method provides a feasible means of moderating the distributional impact of spillover inclusion. It also introduces a normative, theoretical perspective to a largely empirical extant literature and, as such, its axiomatic basis is examined. Finally, an illustrative example of the approach is presented to demonstrate its application.

An eye on equity: faricimab-driven health equity improvements in diabetic macular oedema using a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK societal perspective

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries, with significant disease burden associated with socio-economic deprivation. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) allows evaluation of health equity impacts of interventions, estimation of how health outcomes and costs are distributed in the population, and assessments of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. We conducted an aggregate DCEA to determine the equity impact of faricimab.

METHODS

Data on health outcomes and costs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model of faricimab compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept and off-label bevacizumab using a societal perspective in the base case and a healthcare payer perspective in scenario analysis. Health gains and health opportunity costs were distributed across socio-economic subgroups. Health and equity impacts, measured using the Atkinson inequality index, were assessed visually on an equity-efficiency impact plane and combined into a measure of societal welfare.

RESULTS

At an opportunity cost threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), faricimab displayed an increase in net health benefits against all comparators and was found to improve equity. The equity impact increased the greater the concerns for reducing health inequalities over maximising population health. Using a healthcare payer perspective, faricimab was equity improving in most scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting therapies with fewer injections, such as faricimab, may reduce costs, improve health outcomes and increase health equity. Extended economic evaluation frameworks capturing additional value elements, such as DCEA, enable a more comprehensive valuation of interventions, which is of relevance to decision-makers, healthcare professionals and patients.

A comprehensive value-based method for new nuclear medical service pricing: with case study of radium [223Ra] bone metastases treatment

IMPORTANCE

Innovative nuclear medicine services offer substantial clinical value to patients. However, these advancements often come with high costs. Traditional payment strategies do not incentivize medical institutes to provide new services nor determine the fair price for payers. A shift towards a value-based pricing strategy is imperative to address these challenges. Such a strategy would reconcile the cost of innovation with incentives, foster transparent allocation of healthcare resources, and expedite the accessibility of essential medical services.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and present a comprehensive, value-based pricing model for new nuclear medicine services, illustrated explicitly through a case study of the radium [223Ra] treatment for bone metastases. In constructing the pricing model, we have considered three primary value determinants: the cost of the new service, associated service risk, and the difficulty of the service provision. Our research can help healthcare leaders design an evidence-based Fee-For-Service (FFS) payment reference pricing with nuclear medicine services and price adjustments.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This multi-center study was conducted from March 2021 to February 2022 (including consultation meetings) and employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. We organized focus group consultations with physicians from nuclear medicine departments in Beijing, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Shanghai to standardize the treatment process for radium [223Ra] bone metastases. We used a specially designed 'Radium Nuclide [223Ra] Bone Metastasis Data Collection Form' to gather nationwide resource consumption data to extract information from local databases. Four interviews with groups of experts were conducted to determine the add-up ratio, based on service risk and difficulty. The study organized consultation meeting with key stakeholders, including policymakers, service providers, clinical researchers, and health economists, to finalize the pricing equation and the pricing result of radium [223Ra] bone metastases service.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We developed and detailed a pricing equation tailored for innovative services in the nuclear medicine department, illustrating its application through a step-by-step guide. A standardized service process was established to ensure consistency and accuracy. Adhering to best practice guidelines for health cost data analysis, we emphasized the importance of cross-validation of data, where validated data demonstrated less variation. However, it required a more advanced health information system to manage and analyze the data inputs effectively.

RESULTS

The standardized service of radium [223Ra] bone metastases includes: pre-injection assessment, treatment plan, administration, post-administration monitoring, waste disposal and monitoring. The average duration for each stage is 104 min, 39 min, 25 min, 72 min and 56 min. A standardized monetary value for medical consumables is 54.94 yuan ($7.6), and the standardised monetary value (medical consumables cost plus human input) is 763.68 yuan ($109.9). Applying an agreed value add-up ratio of 1.065, the standardized value is 810.19 yuan ($116.9). Feedback from a consultation meeting with policymakers and health economics researchers indicates a consensus that the pricing equation developed was reasonable and well-grounded.

CONCLUSION

This research is the first study in the field of nuclear medicine department pricing methodology. We introduce a comprehensive value-based nuclear medical service pricing method and use radium[223Ra] bone metastases treatment pricing in China as a case study. This study establishes a novel pricing framework and provides practical instructions on its implementation in a real-world healthcare setting.

A health technology assessment of personalized nutrition interventions using the EUnetHTA HTA Core Model

OBJECTIVES

Poor nutrition links to chronic diseases, emphasizing the need for optimized diets. The EU-funded project PREVENTOMICS, introduced personalized nutrition to address this. This study aims to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) comparing personalized nutrition interventions developed through this project, with non-personalized nutrition interventions (control) for people with normal weight, overweight, or obesity. The goal is to support decisions about further development and implementation of personalized nutrition.

METHODS

The PREVENTOMICS interventions were evaluated using the European Network for HTA Core Model, which includes a methodological framework that encompasses different domains for value assessment. Information was gathered via [1] different statistical analyses and modeling studies, [2] questions asked of project partners and, [3] other (un)published materials.

RESULTS

Clinical trials of PREVENTOMICS interventions demonstrated different body mass index changes compared to control; differences ranged from -0.80 to 0.20 kg/m2. Long-term outcome predictions showed generally improved health outcomes for the interventions; some appeared cost-effective (e.g., interventions in UK). Ethical concerns around health inequality and the lack of specific legal regulations for personalized nutrition interventions were identified. Choice modeling studies indicated openness to personalized nutrition interventions; decisions were primarily affected by intervention's price.

CONCLUSIONS

PREVENTOMICS clinical trials have shown promising effectiveness with no major safety concerns, although uncertainties about effectiveness exist due to small samples (n=60-264) and short follow-ups (10-16 weeks). Larger, longer trials are needed for robust evidence before implementation could be considered. Among other considerations, developers should explore financing options and collaborate with policymakers to prevent exclusion of specific groups due to information shortages.

Estimation of lifetime productivity loss from patients with chronic diseases: methods and empirical evidence of end-stage kidney disease from Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Studies that examine the broad allocation of resources, regardless of who bears the costs, should ideally estimate costs from a societal perspective. We have successfully integrated survival rates, employment ratios, and earnings to address the significant challenge of evaluating societal value through productivity assessments of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in Taiwan.

METHODS

Using a theoretical framework, we interconnected two nationwide databases: the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) and the Taiwan Mortality Registry from 2000 to 2017. Due to the statutory retirement age of 65, we collected data on all patients (83,358) aged 25-64 years diagnosed with ESKD and undergoing maintenance dialysis. We estimated the lifetime survival function through a rolling extrapolation algorithm, which was then combined with the monthly employment ratio and wages to calculate the lifetime employment duration and productivity up to the legal retirement age of ESKD patients. These were compared with sex-, age-, and calendar year-matched referents to determine the loss of employment duration and productivity of ESKD patients.

RESULTS

ESKD patients experienced a loss of approximately 25-56% in lifetime employment duration and a larger loss of about 32-66% in lifetime productivity after adjustments for different age, sex, and calendar year. The annual productivity loss per male (female) ESKD patient relative to that of the age-and calendar year-matched referent ranges from 75.5% to 82.1% (82.3% to 90.3%). During the periods when they are able to work (over the on-the-job duration) male ESKD patients lose between 34 and 56% of their income, and female ESKD patients lose between 39 and 68% of their income, compared to the age-and calendar year-matched referents. The loss of lifetime productivity is a combination of reduced lifetime employment duration, functional disability, absenteeism, and presenteeism at the workplace. The loss related to presenteeism is implied by the reduced wages.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the loss of employment duration, we have empirically demonstrated the lifetime loss of productivity in patients with ESKD, also indicating the "presenteeism" resulted from inability to perform their job with full capacity over long-term periods.

A systematic review of the real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of selected oral antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia in the United States: Updating the evidence and gaps

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a chronic, relapsing, and burdensome psychiatric disorder affecting approximately 0.25%-0.6% of the US population. Oral antipsychotic treatment (OAT) remains the cornerstone for managing schizophrenia. However, nonadherence and high treatment failure lead to increased disease burden and medical spending. Cost-effective management of schizophrenia requires understanding the value of current therapies to facilitate better planning of management policies while addressing unmet needs.

OBJECTIVE

To review existing evidence and gaps regarding real-world effectiveness and economic and humanistic outcomes of OATs, including asenapine, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, iloperidone, lumateperone, lurasidone, olanzapine/samidorphan, paliperidone, and quetiapine.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, American Psychological Association PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature from January 2010 to March 2022 as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language articles describing adults with schizophrenia receiving at least 1 of the selected OATs and reporting real-world effectiveness, direct or indirect costs, humanistic outcomes, behavioral outcomes, adherence/persistence patterns, or product switching were identified.

RESULTS

We identified 25 studies from a total of 24,190 articles. Real-world effectiveness, cost, and adherence/persistence outcomes were reported for most OATs that were selected. Humanistic outcomes and product switching were reported only for lurasidone. Behavioral outcomes (eg, interpersonal relations and suicide ideation) were not reported for any OAT. The key economic outcomes across studies were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, cost per quality-adjusted life-years, and health care costs. In studies that compared long-acting injectables (LAIs) with OATs, LAIs had a higher pharmacy and lower medical costs, while total health care cost was similar between LAIs and OATs. Indirect costs associated with presenteeism, absenteeism, or work productivity were not reported for any of the selected OATs. Overall, patients had poor adherence to OATs, ranging between 20% and 61% across studies. Product switching did not impact the all-cause health care costs before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed considerable gaps exist for evidence on behavioral outcomes, humanistic outcomes, medication switching, and adherence/persistence across OATs. Our findings also suggest an unmet need regarding treatment nonadherence and lack of persistence among patients receiving OATs. We identified a need for research addressing OATs' behavioral and humanistic outcomes and evaluating the impact of product switching in adults with schizophrenia in the United States, which could assist clinicians in promoting patient-centered care and help payers understand the total value of new antipsychotic drugs.

Is the price right? Paying for value today to get more value tomorrow

BACKGROUND

Contemporary debates about drug pricing feature several widely held misconceptions, including the relationship between incentives and innovation, the proportion of total healthcare spending on pharmaceuticals, and whether the economic evaluation of a medicine can be influenced by things other than clinical efficacy.

MAIN BODY

All citizens should have access to timely, equitable, and cost-effective care covered by public funds, private insurance, or a combination of both. Better managing the collective burden of diseases borne by today's and future generations depends in part on developing better technologies, including better medicines. As in any innovative industry, the expectation of adequate financial returns incentivizes innovators and their investors to develop new medicines. Estimating expected returns requires that they forecast revenues, based on the future price trajectory and volume of use over time. How market participants decide what price to set or accept can be complicated, and some observers and stakeholders want to confirm whether the net prices society pays for novel medicines, whether as a reward for past innovation or an incentive for future innovation, are commensurate with those medicines' incremental value. But we must also ask "value to whom?"; medicines not only bring immediate clinical benefits to patients treated today, but also can provide a broad spectrum of short- and long-term benefits to patients, their families, and society. Spending across all facets of healthcare has grown over the last 25 years, but both inpatient and outpatient spending has outpaced drug spending growth even as our drug armamentarium is constantly improving with safer and more effective medicines. In large part, this is because, unlike hospitals, drugs typically go generic, thus making room in our budgets for new and better ones, even as they often keep patients out of hospitals, driving further savings.

CONCLUSION

A thorough evaluation of drug spending and value can help to promote a better allocation of healthcare resources for both the healthy and the sick, both of whom must pay for healthcare. Taking a holistic approach to assessing drug value makes it clear that a branded drug's value to a patient is often only a small fraction of the drug's total value to society. Societal value merits consideration when determining whether and how to make a medicine affordable and accessible to patients: a drug that is worth its price to society should not be rendered inaccessible to ill patients by imposing high out-of-pocket costs or restricting coverage based on narrow health technology assessments (HTAs). Furthermore, recognizing the total societal cost of un- or undertreated conditions is crucial to gaining a thorough understanding of what guides the biomedical innovation ecosystem to create value for society. It would be unwise to discourage the development of new solutions without first appreciating the cost of leaving the problems unsolved.

Real-world evidence generation from patients, their caregivers and physicians supporting clinical, regulatory and guideline decisions: an update on Disease Specific Programmes

OBJECTIVE

To update on and describe the role of Disease Specific Programmes (DSPs), a multi-perspective real-world data (RWD) source, in the context of the evolution of the value and acceptance of real-world evidence (RWE) in clinical, regulatory and guideline decision-making.

METHODS

DSPs are multi-national, multi-subscriber, multi-therapy cross-sectional surveys incorporating retrospective data collection from patient, caregiver and physician perspectives. Information collected covers the patient journey, including treatment/prescribing patterns and rationale, patient-reported outcomes, impact on work and everyday activities, attitudes towards and perceptions of the condition, adherence to treatment and burden of illness. Published peer-reviewed DSP papers were aligned with current key RWE themes identified in the literature, alongside their contribution to RWE.

RESULTS

RWE themes examined were: using RWE to inform clinical practice, patient and caregiver engagement, RWE role in supporting health technology assessments and regulatory submissions, informing value-driven healthcare decisions, real-world patient subgroup differences and therapeutic inertia/unmet needs; highlighting patients' and caregivers' experience of living with a disease, disconnect from their physicians, unmet needs and educational gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

DSPs provide a wealth of RWD in addition to evidence generated by registries, clinical trials and observational research, with wide use for the pharmaceutical industry, government, funding/regulatory bodies, clinical practice guideline insights and, most importantly, informing improvements in people's lives. The depth, breadth and heritage of information collected via DSPs since 1995 is unparalleled, extending understanding of how diseases are managed by physicians in routine clinical practice and why treatment choices are made, patients' perceptions of their disease management, and caregiver burden.

Evolution of Value in American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

In January 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association released a policy statement arguing for the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and value assessments in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether subsequent guidelines changed how they incorporated such concepts.

METHODS

We analyzed guidelines of cardiovascular disease subconditions with a guideline released before and after 2014. We counted the words (total and per page) for 8 selected value- or CEA-related terms and compared counts and rates of terms per page in the guidelines before and after 2014. We counted the number of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or a CEA-related article to compare the ratios of such recommendations to all recommendations before and after 2014. We looked for the inclusion of the value assessment system recommended by the writing committee of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association policy statement of 2014.

RESULTS

We analyzed 20 guidelines of 10 different cardiovascular disease subconditions. Seven of the 10 cardiovascular disease subconditions had guidelines with a greater term per page rate after 2014 than before 2014. Across all 20 guidelines, the proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA changed from 0.44% to 1.99% (P<0.01). The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA-related article changed from 1.02% to 3.34% (P<0.01). Only 3 guidelines used a value assessment system.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or CEA-related article was low before and after 2014 for most of the subconditions, however, with substantial variation in this finding across the guidelines included in our analysis. There is a need to organize existing CEA information better and produce more policy-relevant CEAs so guideline writers can more easily make recommendations that incentivize high-value care and caution against using low-value care.

Value assessment of antimicrobials using the STEDI framework - How steady is the outcome?

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the major threats to global population health, and the antimicrobial market requires substantial reimbursement reform and/or significant financial incentives to function properly. To address these challenges, England piloted a new health technology evaluation process in conjunction with a new payment model in 2019. The value assessment was performed using a dedicated broader value framework for antibiotics for the first time. This so-called STEDI framework is an acronym based on the five value elements it covers (Spectrum, Transmission, Enablement, Diversity, and Insurance value). Learnings from the pilot show that there are important considerations when implementing this value framework: The STEDI value profile of an antibiotic strongly depends on the local context and is impacted by trade-offs between individual value elements. Decision makers should therefore act carefully when applying STEDI to avoid distorting the overall evaluation result. Considering the STEDI value profile of an antibiotic is an important part of its value assessment as it allows for distinguishing between higher- and lower-value products. However, given the complexities surrounding its value assessment, further research must be undertaken to improve the overall STEDI evaluation process.

Estimation of disability free life expectancy in non small cell lung cancer based on real world data

To quantify the societal impact of disability in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), this study estimated the disability-free life expectancy (DFLE), loss-of-DFLE and explored their associations with quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and loss-of-QALE. We interlinked national databases and applied a rolling-over algorithm to estimate the lifetime survival function for patients with NSCLC. Using the EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and Barthel index (BI), we repeatedly measured the quality-of-life and disability functions of NSCLC patients who visited our hospital from 2011 to 2020. Age-, sex-matched referents were simulated from lifetables of the same calendar year of diagnosis. We categorized BI scores ≤ 70 as in need of long-term care and constructed linear mixed models to estimate the utility values and disability scores. We collected 960 cases and 3088 measurements. The proportions of measurements without disability at age 50-64 and in stage I-IIIa, 50-64 and stage IIIb-IV, 65-89 and stage I-IIIa and 65-89 and stage IIIb-IV were 97.3%, 89.3%, 94.8%,78.3%, corresponding to DFLEs of 15.3, 2.4, 6.8, 1.2 years and losses-of-DFLE of 8.1, 20.7, 4.0, 8.6 years, respectively, indicating that advanced stage had a stronger effect than old age. Survivors in advanced stages showed increased demands for assistance in almost all subitems. The DFLEs seemed to be approximate to the QALEs and the latter were shorter than the former due to discomfort and depression. From a societal perspective, future health technology assessment should consider the impact of lifetime duration of functional disability. Early diagnosis of NSCLC may decrease the burden of long-term care.

Eliciting Societal Preferences for Non-health Outcomes: A Person Trade-Off Study in the Context of Genomics

PURPOSE

Economic evaluations of health technologies traditionally aim to maximize population health outcomes measured by using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Non-health outcomes, however, may have high social value, and their exclusion has the potential to bias decisions regarding allocation of health care resources. This research positions Australian participants as societal decision-makers to explore their willingness to trade-off health gains in adults for non-health benefits in families with a child affected by a rare disease.

METHODS

To estimate the social value of the different health care interventions, a person trade-off (PTO) method was used. PTOs present participants with groups of beneficiaries that vary in terms of the number of individuals who will benefit, the individuals' characteristics, their expected benefits, or a combination, and ask which group should be prioritized. Each trade-off presented health gains from the treatment of moderate physical and mental health conditions described by the 3-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) health states. The health gains in these groups were traded-off against non-health gains in families accessing diagnostic genomic testing, and equivalence values were calculated, using median and ratio of means methods, based on the ratio of the group sizes at the point of equivalence. Participants were recruited through Prolific and were stratified according to age, sex, and education. The impact of participant characteristics on equivalence values was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis H tests and ordinary least-squares log-linear regressions.

FINDINGS

Participants (N = 434) positioned as societal decision-makers were generally willing to trade-off adult health gains with the familial non-health benefits of genomic testing, showing a preference for valuing both types of outcomes within public health policy. The aggregation of preferences generated 2 weightings for genomic testing against each health treatment, an unadjusted value and a reweighted value to match target demographic characteristics. Converted into QALY value per test, it was found that participants valued the non-health benefits of genomic testing between 0.730 and 0.756 QALY. A minority of participants always prioritized diagnostic genomic testing over the physical (6.0%) or mental (4.6%) health treatments, with a larger minority always prioritizing the physical (15.4%) or mental (14.8%) health treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicate that participants perceived the non-health parental benefits in children experiencing rare disease to have comparable value to health gains in adults experiencing the moderate physical or mental health conditions described using EQ-5D-3L. These findings suggest that the benefits of genomic tests would be underestimated if only health benefits are included in economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of HLA-B*58:01 testing to prevent Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in Vietnam

Background: HLA-B*58:01 is strongly associated with allopurinol-induced Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) in Vietnam. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of this testing to prevent SJS/TEN. Methods: A model was developed to compare three strategies: no screening, use allopurinol; HLA-B*58:01 screening; and no screening, use probenecid. A willingness-to-pay of three-times gross domestic product per capita was used. Results: Compared with 'no screening, use allopurinol', 'screening' increased quality-adjusted life-years by 0.0069 with the incremental cost of Vietnam dong (VND) 14,283,633 (US$617), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of VND 2,070,459,122 (US$89,398) per quality-adjusted life-year. Therefore, 'screening' was unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay. Testing's cost-effectiveness may change with targeted high-risk patients, reimbursed febuxostat or lower probenecid prices. Conclusion: The implementation of nationwide HLAB*58:01 testing before the use of allopurinol is not cost-effective, according to this analysis. This may be due to the lack of quality data on the effectiveness of testing and costing data in the Vietnamese population.

Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements

Health technology assessment (HTA) has traditionally relied on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) as a cornerstone of evaluation of new therapies, assessing the clinical validity and utility, the efficacy, and the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. The current format of cost-effectiveness analysis, however, does not allow for inclusion of more holistic aspects of health and, therefore, value elements for new technologies such as the impact on patients and society beyond its pure clinical and economic value. This study aimed to review the recent modelling attempts to expand the traditional cost-effectiveness analysis approach by incorporating additional elements of value in health technology assessment. A pragmatic literature review was conducted for articles published between 2012 and 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness analysis including value aspects beyond the clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates; searches identified 13 articles that were eligible for inclusion. These expanded modelling approaches mainly focused on integrating the impact of societal values and health equity in cost-effectiveness analysis, both of which were championed as important aspects of health technology assessment that should be incorporated into future technology assessments. The reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis methods included modification of the current cost-effectiveness analysis methodology (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis, extended cost-effectiveness analysis) or the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Of these approaches, augmented cost-effectiveness analysis appears to have the most potential by expanding traditional aspects of value, as it uses techniques already familiar to health technology assessment agencies but also allows space for incorporation of qualitative aspects of a product's value. This review showcases that methods to unravel additional value elements for technology assessment exist, therefore, patient access to promising technologies can be improved by moving the discussion from "if" to "how" additional value elements can inform decision-making.

Methods to Adjust Willingness-to-Pay Measures for Severity of Illness

OBJECTIVES

Both private sector organizations and governmental health agencies increasingly use illness severity measures to adjust willingness-to-pay thresholds. Three widely discussed methods-absolute shortfall (AS), proportional shortfall (PS), and fair innings (FI)-all use ad hoc adjustments to cost-effectiveness analysis methods and "stair-step" brackets to link illness severity with willingness-to-pay adjustments. We assess how these methods compare with microeconomic expected utility theory-based methods to value health gains.

METHODS

We describe standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods, the basis from which AS, PS, and FI make severity adjustments. We then develop how the Generalized Risk Adjusted Cost Effectiveness (GRACE) model assesses value for differing illness and disability severity. We compare AS, PS, and FI against value as defined by GRACE.

RESULTS

AS, PS, and FI have major and unresolved differences between them in how they value various medical interventions. Compared with GRACE, they fail to properly incorporate illness severity or disability. They conflate gains in health-related quality of life and life expectancy incorrectly and confuse the magnitude of treatment gains with value per quality-adjusted life-year. Stair-step methods also introduce important ethical concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

AS, PS, and FI disagree with each other in major ways, demonstrating that at most, one correctly describes patients' preferences. GRACE offers a coherent alternative, based on neoclassical expected utility microeconomic theory, and can be readily implemented in future analyses. Other approaches that depend on ad hoc ethical statements have yet to be justified using sound axiomatic approaches.

Treatment goals for rheumatoid arthritis: patient engagement and goal collection

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach's feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020

Importance

Drug expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country and are projected to continue increasing, so US health systems may benefit from evaluating international regulatory and reimbursement decision-making of new drugs.

Objective

To evaluate regulatory decisions and health technology assessments (HTAs) in Australia, Canada, and the UK regarding new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 through 2020, as well as to estimate the US cost per patient per year for drugs receiving negative recommendations.

Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, recommendations issued by agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK were collected for new drugs approved by the FDA in 2017 through 2020. All data were current as of May 31, 2022.

Exposures

Authorizations and HTAs in selected countries.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All FDA-approved drugs were matched by active ingredient to decision summary reports published by drug regulators and HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Regulatory approval concordance and reasons for negative recommendations were assessed using descriptive statistics. For drugs not recommended by an international agency, the annual US drug cost per patient was estimated from FDA labeling and wholesale acquisition costs.

Results

The FDA approved 206 new drugs in 2017 through 2020, of which 162 (78.6%) were granted marketing authorization by at least 1 other regulatory agency at a median (IQR) delay of 12.1 (17.7) months following US approval. Conversely, 5 FDA-approved drugs were refused marketing authorization by an international regulatory agency due to unfavorable benefit-to-risk assessments. An additional 42 FDA-approved drugs received negative reimbursement recommendations from HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, or the UK due to uncertainty of clinical benefits or unacceptably high prices. The median (IQR) US cost of the 47 drugs refused authorization or not recommended for reimbursement by an international agency was $115 281 ($166 690) per patient per year. Twenty drugs were for oncology indications, and 36 were approved by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways or the Orphan Drug Act.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study assessed reasons for which drugs recently approved by the FDA were refused marketing authorization or not recommended for public reimbursement in other countries. Drugs with limited international market presence may require close examination by US health care professionals and health systems.

Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a 'risk' to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients' risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension ('hope') based on patients' risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients' risk preferences or 'hope' empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating 'hope' based on patients' stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate 'hope' and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

R WE ready for reimbursement? A round up of developments in real-world evidence relating to health technology assessment: part 7

This month we focus on papers that provide insights into the potential for target trial emulation to be used in health technology assessment, the role of real-world evidence (RWE) in informing additional elements of value and the importance of RWE to European joint clinical assessments.

Measurement and valuation of the attributes of innovation of healthcare technologies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Innovative technologies (e.g. treatments) play a pivotal role in improving patient's well-being and in consequence population health outcomes. However, there is lack of consensus and comprehensive summary what constitutes innovation. Additionally, valuing them using traditional cost-effectiveness analysis is unlikely to capture the full range of benefits of these innovative technologies. This review aims to understand how innovation attributes were measured and/or valued in healthcare.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systemically searched four databases, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit, from inception to April 2021. Studies were included if they measured and/or valued the attributes of innovation for healthcare identified in our previous systematic review. Any other potential recommended methods to measure and/or value the innovation attributes were also extracted.

RESULTS

Of 546 articles, a total of 17 articles were finally included in this review. If attributes were measured and traded-off relative to costs, then it was considered as valuation of those attributes. Two specific attributes of innovation, i.e. substantial benefits and convenience and/or adherence were measured using adherence rate and life year or QALY gain. When innovation attribute was non-specific it was described as "overall innovation" and measured using overall innovativeness scale (e.g. point/binary scale). QALY-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was commonly used to assess and value substantial benefit attribute. Other valuation approaches were (i) rating, (ii) the economic value of life year gain, (iii) multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), (iv) incremental net health benefit (INHB), and (v) quality-adjusted cost of care (QACC). ICER threshold adjustment and multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are two common recommended approaches to capture the innovation comprehensively. We found that MCDA approaches often promoted and discussed but were sub-optimally used to incorporate different value attributes into decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing methods used by payers to measure and value the innovation component of a new product do not reflect the full range of health and cost impacts. They generally do not consider the alternative perspectives of patients, providers, caregivers, and society. Key challenges remain to appropriately measure and value innovation attributes and incorporate them into HTA decision making.