Incorporating environmental and sustainability considerations into health technology assessment and clinical and public health guidelines: a scoping review

Accounting for planetary boundaries in health economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Health economic evaluation (HEE) provides guidance for decision-making in the face of scarcity but ignores ecological scarcities as long as they involve external costs only. Following the imperative to account for planetary health, this study explores how this blind spot can be addressed.

AREAS COVERED

The study is based on a critical review of relevant work, particularly in the fields of HEE and life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA can provide information on a technology's environmental impacts which can be accounted for on both the effect and cost sides of HEE. Cost-benefit analyses can incorporate environmental impacts in case vignettes used for eliciting consumers' willingness to pay. Existing LCA impact models can be used to estimate human health risks associated with environmental impacts and add them to the health benefits in cost-utility analyses. Many jurisdictions offer lists of shadow prices that can be used to incorporate environmental impacts on the cost side of HEE. Also, environmental impacts can be reported in a disaggregated manner.

EXPERT OPINION

Accounting for planetary boundaries is likely to become a key field of methodological innovation in HEE. Decision relevance is likely to be highest for technologies with similar cost-effectiveness but different ecological impacts.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments.

METHODS

We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Pharmacological and Benefit-Risk Profile of Once-Weekly Basal Insulin Administration (Icodec): Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs and Exploring Future Applications

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting over 500 million people worldwide, which leads to severe complications and to millions of deaths yearly. When therapeutic goals are not reached with diet, physical activity, or non-insulin drugs, starting/adding insulin treatment is recommended by international guidelines. A novel recombinant insulin is icodec, a once-weekly insulin that successfully completed phase III trials and that has recently obtained the marketing authorization approval from the European Medicines Agency. This narrative review aims to assess icodec pharmacological and clinical features concerning evidence on benefit-risk profile, as compared to other basal insulins, addressing the potential impact on patients' unmet needs. Icodec is a full agonist, recombinant human insulin analogue characterized by an ultra-long half-life (196 h), enabling its use in once-weekly administration. Phase III randomized clinical trials involving more than 4000 diabetic patients, mostly type 2 DM, documented non-inferiority of icodec, as compared to currently available basal insulins, in terms of estimated mean reduction of glycated hemoglobin levels; a superiority of icodec, compared to control, was confirmed in insulin-naïve patients (ONWARDS 1, 3, and 5), and in patients previously treated with basal insulin (ONWARDS 2). Icodec safety profile was comparable to the currently available basal insulins. Once-weekly icodec has the potential to improve patients' adherence, thus positively influencing patients' treatment satisfaction as well as quality of life, especially in type 2 DM insulin-naïve patients. An improved adherence might positively influence glycemic target achievement, reduce overall healthcare costs and overcome some of the unmet patients' needs. Icodec has the potential to emerge as a landmark achievement in the evolution of insulin therapy, with a positive impact also for the National Health Services and the whole society.

Reducing the burden of travel and environmental impact through decentralization of cancer care

Life expectancy, quality of life and satisfaction of oncologic patients highly depend on access to adequate specialized services, that consider their conditions in a holistic way. The present study aims to evaluate the introduction of oncology services in an outpatient setting in a mountain village in Northern Italy. The initiative is evaluated using the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic and environmental) as dimensions that are often overlooked by healthcare policy makers. Using micro data on 18,625 interventions, we estimate the number of kilometers saved by patients (reduction of "travel burden" as indicator of social sustainability), the additional travel costs for the NHS (indicator of economic sustainability) and the implied reduction of CO2 emissions (indicator of environmental sustainability). Over the period July 2016-2021, the decentralized health center delivered 2,292 interventions saving 218,566 km for a corresponding value of €131,140. The additional costs for the NHS was €26,152. The reduction of CO2 emissions was 32.37 Tons (€5,989). Overall, the socio-economic benefit of reducing travel of care for the patients residing in this remote valley was €110,976. This study adds original understanding of the benefits of decentralizing oncologic care and shows its operational feasibility conditions. Given the modest number of similar projects, it provides evidence to policy makers and, especially, managers who are faced with the challenge to implement the decentralization of specialized services.

Main Challenges of Incorporating Environmental Impacts in the Economic Evaluation of Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review

Health technology assessment (HTA) provides evidence-based information on healthcare technology to support decision making in many countries. Environmental impact is a relevant dimension of a health technology's value, but it has been poorly addressed in HTA processes in spite of the commitment that the health sector must have to contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change. This study aims to identify the state of the art and challenges for quantifying environmental impacts that could be incorporated into the economic evaluation (EE) of HTA. We performed a scoping review that included 22 articles grouped into four types of contribution: (1) concepts to draw up a theoretical framework, (2) HTA reports, (3) parameter designs or suitable indicators, and (4) economic or budgetary impact assessments. This review shows that evaluation of the environmental impact of HTAs is still very incipient. Small steps are being taken in EE, such as carbon footprint estimations from a life-cycle approach of technologies and the entire care pathway.