Cost‐effectiveness models for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: IPECAD modeling workshop cross‐comparison challenge

INTRODUCTION

The credibility of model-based economic evaluations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is central to appropriate decision-making in a policy context. We report on the International PharmacoEconomic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Modeling Workshop Challenge.

METHODS

Two common benchmark scenarios, for the hypothetical treatment of AD mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia, were developed jointly by 29 participants. Model outcomes were summarized, and cross-comparisons were discussed during a structured workshop.

RESULTS

A broad concordance was established among participants. Mean 10-year restricted survival and time in MCI in the control group ranged across 10 MCI models from 6.7 to 9.5 years and 3.4 to 5.6 years, respectively; and across 4 mild dementia models from 5.4 to 7.9 years (survival) and 1.5 to 4.2 years (mild dementia).

DISCUSSION

The model comparison increased our understanding of methods, data used, and disease progression. We established a collaboration framework to assess cost-effectiveness outcomes, an important step toward transparent and credible AD models.

Cost effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and rescreening in men in a modern context: evaluation of a hypothetical cohort using a decision analytical model

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men, from the perspective of a national health service.

SETTING

Screening units at regional hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Hypothetical cohort of 65 year old men from the general population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Costs (£ in 2010) and effect on health outcomes (quality adjusted life years (QALYs)).

RESULTS

Screening seems to be highly cost effective compared with not screening. The model estimated a 92% probability that some form of screening would be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 (€24,790; $31,460). If men with an aortic diameter of 25-29 mm at the initial screening were rescreened once after five years, 452 men per 100,000 initially screened would benefit from early detection, whereas lifetime rescreening every five years would detect 794 men per 100,000. We estimated the associated incremental cost effectiveness ratios for rescreening once and lifetime rescreening to be £10,013 and £29,680 per QALY, respectively. The individual probability of being the most cost effective strategy was higher for each rescreening strategy than for the screening once strategy (in view of the £20,000 threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the cost effectiveness of screening versus no screening and lends further support to considerations of rescreening men at least once for abdominal aortic aneurysm.