Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Comparative Effectiveness Research—A Primer

Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens

PURPOSE

Decision models can be used to support allocation of scarce surgical resources. These models incorporate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values that can be determined using physician panels. The predominant opinion is that one should use values obtained from citizens. We investigated whether physicians give different HRQoL values to citizens and evaluate whether such differences impact decision model outcomes.

METHODS

A two-round Delphi study was conducted. Citizens estimated HRQoL of pre- and post-operative health states for ten surgeries using a visual analogue scale. These values were compared using Bland-Altman analysis with HRQoL values previously obtained from physicians. Impact on decision model outcomes was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the rankings of surgeries established using the physicians' and the citizens' values.

RESULTS

A total of 71 citizens estimated HRQoL. Citizens' values on the VAS scale were - 0.07 points (95% CI - 0.12 to - 0.01) lower than the physicians' values. The correlation between the rankings of surgeries based on citizens' and physicians' values was 0.96 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Physicians put higher values on health states than citizens. However, these differences only result in switches between adjacent entries in the ranking. It would seem that HRQoL values obtained from physicians are adequate to inform decision models during crises.

Assessing utilities for muscle-invasive bladder cancer-related health states

OBJECTIVES

How patients value functional outcomes against oncologic outcomes during decision-making for muscular-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) remains unclear. We sought to quantify individuals' preferences on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 represents perfect health and 0 represents death.

METHODS

Descriptions of 6 hypothetical health states were developed. These included: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy with ileal conduit (IC) or with neobladder reconstruction (NB), Transurethral resection and chemotherapy/radiation (CRT), CRT requiring salvage cystectomy (SC), Recurrent/metastatic bladder cancer after local therapy (RMBC), and Metastatic bladder cancer (MBC). Descriptions consisted of diagnosis, treatments, adverse effects, follow-up protocol, and prognosis and were reviewed for accuracy by expert panel. Included individuals were asked to evaluate states using the visual analog scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-four individuals were included for analysis. No score differences were observed between IC, NB, and CRT on VAS or SG. On VAS, SC (value = 0.429) was rated as significantly worse (P < 0.001) than NB (value = 0.582) and CRT (value = 0.565). However, this was not the case using the SG method. Both RMBC (VAS value = 0.178, SG value = 0.631) and MBC (VAS value = 0.169, SG value = 0.327) rated as significantly worse (P < 0.001) than the other states using both VAS and SG.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this sample of the general population, preferences for local treatments including IC, NB, and CRT were not found to be significantly different. These values can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of using oral magnesium supplementation in the treatment of prediabetes

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from clinical trials supports the efficacy of oral magnesium supplementation in the treatment of glucose-related disorders. Thus, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using oral magnesium chloride (MgCl₂) in prediabetes treatment.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. For such purpose, we used original information from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Analysis was carried out based on a health services provider perspective, a 10-year time horizon, and 3% discount rate for costs and effectiveness. Taking into account risk factor profiles, a Markov micro-simulation model was used, and a probabilistic sensibility analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The oral MgCl₂ was dominant with lower cost and greater effectiveness as compared with placebo. As compared with placebo, 22.3% and 22.0% of men using MgCl₂ did not develop diabetes or cardiovascular disease. The cost per person of using MgCl₂ as compared with placebo, in the individuals without complications, was $2206 versus $4048 USD for men, and $1984 versus $3272 USD for women. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that using oral MgCl₂ for at least 4 months, in adults with prediabetes and hypomagnesemia, is a cost-effective option for reducing complications and direct medical costs.

Review: A Practical Guide to Understanding Cost-effectiveness Analyses

Cost-effectiveness analysis is a way to understand the value of a health care intervention in terms of assessing the money spent to produce beneficial outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used by various stakeholders for such purposes because health care resources and financing may be scarce, depending on the economy, and certain interventions may be costly to produce such outcomes compared with other options. These analyses are built on well-researched and robust inputs for costs and outcomes and may be modeled using a technique called Markov chain models, which allow transitions among various health states (eg, alive, dead, outgrow allergy, allergy relapses) relative to the condition of interest to reflect a base-case scenario. Then, the margins of the inputs are explored for a sensitivity analysis of potential findings. These analyses should be investigated from multiple perspectives (eg, society, health care payer). Limitations of the analysis should be clearly stated. Although such models are an informative way to explore a situation and can be performed without additional direct patient intervention, a weakness of the approach is that this may overlook individual patient nuances. Cost-effectiveness analyses are important policy tools to show, on average, an optimal way to improve value in population health.

Assessing New Technologies in Surgery: Case Example of Acute Primary Repair of the Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment provides a means to assess the technical properties, safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and ethical/legal/social impact of a novel technology. An important component of health technology assessment is the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which can be performed using model-based CEA. This study used the CEA model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a novel ligament augmentation device with the standard technique for primary repair of complete ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears.

METHODS

A model was developed for complete UCL tear requiring acute surgical repair, comparing the cost-effectiveness of standard technique primary repair and repair using a ligament augmentation device from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, net monetary benefit (NMB) and incremental NMB. A cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000/QALY was used to compare the 2 techniques. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the parameter uncertainty, specifically the impact of device cost, time off work, probability of complication, and postoperative outcome.

RESULTS

The NMB for the standard technique was CAD $42,598, and the NMB for repair using the ligament augmentation device was CAD $41,818. The standard technique was the preferred strategy for primary repair of complete UCL tears. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ligament augmentation device became cost-effective if individuals return to work in <18 days (base case 23 days). The device was also favored when the cost was less than CAD $50 and the difference in time to return to work was at least 1 day.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrates that there may be significant costs associated with the introduction of novel health technologies, and certain conditions, such as an earlier return to work, must be met for some devices to be a cost-effective option. This study provides an example of how model-based CEA is a useful tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel device.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/Decision Analysis II.

Nation-Scale Adoption of Shorter Breast Radiation Therapy Schedules Can Increase Survival in Resource Constrained Economies: Results From a Markov Chain Analysis

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated whole breast irradiation and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) offer women options for shorter courses of breast radiation therapy. The impact of these shorter schedules on the breast cancer populations of emerging economies with limited radiation therapy resources is unknown. We hypothesized that adoption of these schedules would improve throughput in the system and, by allowing more women access to life-saving treatments, improve patient survival within the system.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We designed a Markov chain model to simulate the different health states that a postlumpectomy or postmastectomy patient could enter over the course of a 20-year follow-up period. Transition rates between health states were adapted from published data on recurrence rates. We used primary data from a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, to populate the model with proportional use of mastectomy versus breast conservation and to estimate the proportion of patients suitable for APBI. Sensitivity analyses on the use of APBI and relative efficacy of APBI were conducted to study the impact on the population.

RESULTS

The shorter schedule resulted in more women alive and more women remaining without evidence of disease (NED) compared with the conventional schedule, with an absolute difference of about 4% and 7% at 15 years, respectively. Among women who had lumpectomies, the chance of remaining alive and with an intact breast was 62% in the hypofractionation model and 54% in the conventional fractionation model.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing throughput in the system can result in improved survival, improved chances of remaining without evidence of disease, and improved chances of remaining alive with a breast. These findings are significant and suggest that adoption of hypofractionation in emerging economies is not simply a question of efficiency and cost but one of access to care and patient survivorship.

Maximizing resources in the local treatment of prostate cancer: A summary of cost-effectiveness studies

OBJECTIVES

Prostate cancer is a common diagnosis with several treatment options for the newly diagnosed patient, including radiation, surgery, active surveillance, and watchful waiting. Although tailoring of treatment to individual patient needs is an important goal, the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act has placed renewed interest in cost containment and cost-effectiveness. We sought to conduct a literature review of recent US-based studies to analyze the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search through PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and manual cross-referencing of articles. We identified US-based studies with cost analyses starting in 2005 that studied the cost-effectiveness of initial local treatments for localized prostate cancer (surgery, radiation, or observation).

RESULTS

There were eight studies that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most studies took the cost perspective of Medicare, and two studies also considered the societal cost in terms of lost patient time. Most studies also used a Markov model with inputs based on the available literature for the effectiveness and toxicity of the different treatment options. The radiation-focused studies tended to find brachytherapy (BT) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to be more cost-effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton beam therapy. These findings were primarily based on the lower cost of SBRT or BT with roughly equal efficacy and toxicity. The two studies focused on surgery found surgery to be more cost effective than intensity-modulated radiation therapy, at least for low-risk disease, and one study found BT to be more cost-effective than surgery, and watchful waiting to be the most cost-effective option overall.

CONCLUSION

Cost-effectiveness analysis is important because it helps patients, physicians, and policymakers make quantitatively-based decisions, which balance treatment efficacy, toxicity, and costs. Significant methodological heterogeneity in the studies we found limit the ability to compare their results directly, but most found that for favorable-risk prostate cancer, shorter or simpler treatments tended to be more cost-effective, including no treatment (watchful waiting) in one study.

Systematic review of the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy for prostate cancer from 2003 to 2013

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer remains a prevalent diagnosis with a spectrum of treatment choices that offer similar oncologic outcomes but differing side effect profiles and associated costs. As the technology for prostate radiation therapy has advanced, its associated costs have escalated, thus making cost-effectiveness analyses critical to assess the value of competing treatment options, including watchful waiting, surgery, brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D-conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), proton beam therapy (PBT), and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify articles that performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on different radiation treatment options for localized prostate cancer, summarize their findings, and highlight the main drivers of cost effectiveness.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on two databases, PubMed and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry ( https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear4 ), using search terms that included 'prostate', 'cost effectiveness prostate radiation' and 'cost analysis comparative effectiveness prostate radiation'. Studies were included in this review if the cost data were from 2002 or later, and outcomes reported both cost and effectiveness, preferably including a cost-utility analysis with the outcome of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as the effectiveness measure.

RESULTS

There were 14 articles between 2003 and 2013 that discussed cost effectiveness of prostate radiotherapy in men over the age of 65. All but four of the papers were from the US; the others were from Canada and the UK. The majority of the papers used Markov decision analysis and estimated cost from a payer's perspective, usually from Medicare reimbursement data. Assumptions for the model and utilities to calculate QALYs were estimated using published literature at the time of the analysis. Each analysis had a sensitivity analysis to compensate for the uncertainty of the model inputs. The main drivers of cost effectiveness were the cost of the radiation treatment and the differential QALYs accrued because of different treatment-related morbidities. Brachytherapy was consistently found to be more cost effective when compared with surgery and other radiation treatment options. IMRT was cost effective when compared with 3D-CRT. PBT was not found to be cost effective in any of the analyses, mostly due to the high costs of PBT. SBRT was the newest technology that was analyzed, and it was also found to be cost effective compared with IMRT and PBT.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness research of prostate radiation treatments allows patients, providers, and payers to better understand the true value of each treatment choice. Due to the variation in each of these analyses (e.g., costing, and disease and complication assumptions, etc.), it is difficult to generalize the results. One must be careful in drawing conclusions from these studies and extrapolating to individual patients, particularly with the clear utility dependence seen in the majority of these studies.