Cost effectiveness analysis of using multiple neuromodalities in treating severe traumatic brain injury in a developing country like Malaysia

From Evidence to Policy: Economic Evaluations of Healthcare in Malaysia: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe the various economic evaluation studies in Malaysia and to determine the range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as reported in these studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the scientific electronic databases was conducted (Medline, EBM Reviews, Embase, and hand search) to identify all published economic evaluation studies related to Malaysian healthcare. Two researchers assessed the quality of selected studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The assessment was also reviewed by expert members of the Technical Advisory Committee of Health Technology Economic Evaluations (TACHTEE).

RESULTS

A total of 64 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and included in this systematic review. Thirty studies were partial economic evaluations; the full economic evaluations included 17 cost-effectiveness analyses and 17 cost-utility analyses. From all the reported ICERs, the majority (68%) were categorized as highly cost-effective (ICER of less than 1 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years gained).

CONCLUSION

This review identifies information gaps and loopholes in health economics research in Malaysia. Additionally, this study provides the information that the majority of published interventions in Malaysia fell within the cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP per capita per quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years gained.

In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment

Background

The in-hospital treatment of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered to be expensive, especially in patients with severe TBI (s-TBI). To improve future treatment decision-making, resource allocation and research initiatives, this study reviewed the in-hospital costs for patients with s-TBI and the quality of study methodology.

Methods

A systematic search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CENTRAL, Emcare, PsychINFO, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Articles published before August 2018 reporting in-hospital acute care costs for patients with s-TBI were included. Quality was assessed by using a 19-item checklist based on the CHEERS statement.

Results

Twenty-five out of 2372 articles were included. In-hospital costs per patient were generally high and ranged from $2,130 to $401,808. Variation between study results was primarily caused by methodological heterogeneity and variable patient and treatment characteristics. The quality assessment showed variable study quality with a mean total score of 71% (range 48% - 96%). Especially items concerning cost data scored poorly (49%) because data source, cost calculation methodology and outcome reporting were regularly unmentioned or inadequately reported.

Conclusions

Healthcare consumption and in-hospital costs for patients with s-TBI were high and varied widely between studies. Costs were primarily driven by the length of stay and surgical intervention and increased with higher TBI severity. However, drawing firm conclusions on the actual in-hospital costs of patients sustaining s-TBI was complicated due to variation and inadequate quality of the included studies. Future economic evaluations should focus on the long-term cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies and use guideline recommendations and common data elements to improve study quality.

Consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum

Microdialysis enables the chemistry of the extracellular interstitial space to be monitored. Use of this technique in patients with acute brain injury has increased our understanding of the pathophysiology of several acute neurological disorders. In 2004, a consensus document on the clinical application of cerebral microdialysis was published. Since then, there have been significant advances in the clinical use of microdialysis in neurocritical care. The objective of this review is to report on the International Microdialysis Forum held in Cambridge, UK, in April 2014 and to produce a revised and updated consensus statement about its clinical use including technique, data interpretation, relationship with outcome, role in guiding therapy in neurocritical care and research applications.

An evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of alternative care locations for critically ill adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

For critically ill adult patients with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI), we assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness of: (a) Management in dedicated neurocritical care units versus combined neuro/general critical care units within neuroscience centres. (b) 'Early' transfer to a neuroscience centre versus 'no or late' transfer for those who present at a non-neuroscience centre.

METHODS

The Risk Adjustment In Neurocritical care (RAIN) Study included prospective admissions following acute TBI to 67 UK adult critical care units during 2009-11. Data were collected on baseline case-mix, mortality, resource use, and at six months, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), and quality of life (QOL) (EuroQol 5D-3L). We report incremental effectiveness, costs and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) of the alternative care locations, adjusting for baseline differences with validated risk prediction models. We tested the robustness of results in sensitivity analyses.

FINDINGS

Dedicated neurocritical care unit patients (N = 1324) had similar six-month mortality, higher QOL (mean gain 0.048, 95% CI -0.002 to 0.099) and increased average costs compared with those managed in combined neuro/general units (N = 1341), with a lifetime cost per QALY gained of £14,000. 'Early' transfer to a neuroscience centre (N = 584) was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio 0.52, 0.34-0.80), higher QOL for survivors (mean gain 0.13, 0.032-0.225), but positive incremental costs (£15,001, £11,123 to £18,880) compared with 'late or no transfer' (N = 263). The lifetime cost per QALY gained for 'early' transfer was £11,000.

CONCLUSIONS

For critically ill adult patients with acute TBI, within neuroscience centres management in dedicated neurocritical care units versus combined neuro/general units led to improved QoL and higher costs, on average, but these differences were not statistically significant. This study finds that 'early' transfer to a neuroscience centre is associated with reduced mortality, improvement in QOL and is cost-effective.

Multimodality monitoring consensus statement: monitoring in emerging economies

The burden of disease and so the need for care is often greater at hospitals in emerging economies. This is compounded by frequent restrictions in the delivery of good quality clinical care due to resource limitations. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in this economically defined group, such that advanced brain monitoring is routinely practiced at certain centers that have an interest in neurocritical care. It also must be recognized that significant heterogeneity in the delivery of neurocritical care exists even within individual high-income countries (HICs), determined by costs and level of interest. Direct comparisons of data between HICs and the group of low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs) are made difficult by differences in patient demographics, selection for ICU admission, therapies administered, and outcome assessment. Evidence suggests that potential benefits of multimodality monitoring depend on an appropriate environment and clinical expertise. There is no evidence to suggest that patients in LAMICs where such resources exist should be treated any differently to patients from HICs. The potential for outcome benefits in LAMICs is arguably greater in absolute terms because of the large burden of disease; however, the relative cost/benefit ratio of such monitoring in this setting must be viewed in context of the overall priorities in delivering health care at individual institutions.

Economic Evaluations in the Diagnosis and Management of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Quality

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations provide a unique opportunity to identify the optimal strategies for the diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury (TBI), for which uncertainty is common and the economic burden is substantial.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to systematically review and examine the quality of contemporary economic evaluations in the diagnosis and management of TBI.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, EconLit, and the Tufts CEA Registry for comparative economic evaluations published from 2000 onward (last updated on August 30, 2013). Data on methods, results, and quality were abstracted in duplicate. The results were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively.

RESULTS

Of 3539 citations, 24 economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. Nine were cost-utility, five were cost-effectiveness, three were cost-minimization, and seven were cost-consequences analyses. Only six studies were of high quality. Current evidence from high-quality studies suggests the economic attractiveness of the following strategies: a low medical threshold for computed tomography (CT) scanning of asymptomatic infants with possible inflicted TBI, selective CT scanning of adults with mild TBI as per the Canadian CT Head Rule, management of severe TBI according to the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, management of TBI in dedicated neurocritical care units, and early transfer of patients with TBI with nonsurgical lesions to neuroscience centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Threshold-guided CT scanning, adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, and care for patients with TBI, including those with nonsurgical lesions, in specialized settings appear to be economically attractive strategies.

Exploring the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year in the state of Penang, Malaysia

Introduction

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is typically compared with a reference value to support the cost-effectiveness of a decision. One method for estimating this value is to estimate the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This study was conducted to explore the WTP for a QALY in the Malaysian population.

Methods

A cross-sectional, contingent valuation study was conducted in Penang, Malaysia. Respondents were selected from randomly chosen geographical grids of Penang. Respondents’ sociodemographic information, qualities of life, and WTP for one additional QALY were collected using predesigned questionnaires in face-to-face interviews. WTP values were elicited using a double-bound dichotomous choice via a bidding game approach. The Heckman selection model was applied to the analysis of the mean WTP/QALY values, where the “protest zero” values, which may contribute to selection bias, were excluded.

Results

The mean value of WTP for an additional QALY gained was estimated to be MYR (Malaysian Ringgit) 29,080 (~USD 9,000). Key factors that affected the WTP include ethnicity and estimated monthly household income.

Conclusion

The study findings suggested that the cost-effectiveness threshold value as studied in Penang, Malaysia was estimated to be MYR 29,080.

Traumatic brain injury: methodological approaches to estimate health and economic outcomes

The effort to standardize the methodology and adherence to recommended principles for all economic evaluations has been emphasized in medical literature. The objective of this review is to examine whether economic evaluations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) research have been compliant with existing guidelines. Medline search was performed between January 1, 1995 and August 11, 2012. All original TBI-related full economic evaluations were included in the study. Two authors independently rated each study's methodology and data presentation to determine compliance to the 10 methodological principles recommended by Blackmore et al. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the data. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with Kappa statistics. A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen of these studies described cost-effectiveness, seven cost-benefit, and three cost-utility analyses. The results showed a rapid growth in the number of published articles on the economic impact of TBI since 2000 and an improvement in their methodological quality. However, overall compliance with recommended methodological principles of TBI-related economic evaluation has been deficient. On average, about six of the 10 criteria were followed in these publications, and only two articles met all 10 criteria. These findings call for an increased awareness of the methodological standards that should be followed by investigators both in performance of economic evaluation and in reviews of evaluation reports prior to publication. The results also suggest that all economic evaluations should be made by following the guidelines within a conceptual framework, in order to facilitate evidence-based practices in the field of TBI.

Is aggressive treatment of traumatic brain injury cost-effective?

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine whether aggressive treatment of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), including invasive intracranial monitoring and decompressive craniectomy, is cost-effective.

METHODS

A decision-analytical model was created to compare costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for treating a patient with severe TBI. The aggressive-care approach is compared with "routine care," in which Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines are not followed. A "comfort care" category, in which a single day in the ICU is followed by routine floor care, is included for comparison only. Probabilities of each treatment resulting in various Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) scores were obtained from the literature. The GOS scores were converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on expected longevity and calculated quality of life associated with each GOS category. Estimated direct (acute and long-term medical care) and indirect (loss of productivity) costs were calculated from the perspective of society. Sensitivity analyses employed a 2D Monte Carlo simulation of 1000 trials, each with 1000 patients. The model was also used to estimate these values for patients 40, 60, and 80 years of age.

RESULTS

For the average 20-year-old, aggressive care yields 11.7 (± 1.6 [SD]) QALYs, compared with routine care (10.0 ± 1.5 QALYs). This difference is highly significant (p < 0.0001). Although the differences in effectiveness between the 2 strategies diminish with advancing age, aggressive care remains significantly better at all ages. When all costs are considered, aggressive care is also significantly less costly than routine care ($1,264,000 ± $118,000 vs $1,361,000 ± $107,000) for the average 20-year-old. Aggressive care remains significantly less costly until age 80, at which age it costs more than routine care. However, even in the 80-year-old, aggressive care is likely the more cost-effective approach. Comfort care is associated with poorer outcomes at all ages and with higher costs for all groups except 80-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

When all the costs of severe TBI are considered, aggressive treatment is a cost-effective option, even for older patients. Comfort care for severe TBI is associated with poor outcomes and high costs, and should be reserved for situations in which aggressive approaches have failed or testing suggests such treatment is futile.