Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a South African pregnancy support grant

Poverty among expectant mothers often results in sub-optimal maternal nutrition and inadequate antenatal care, with negative consequences on child health outcomes. South Africa has a child support grant that is available from birth to those in need. This study aims to determine whether a pregnancy support grant, administered through the extension of the child support grant, would be cost-effective compared to the existing child support grant alone. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a decision-tree model to predict the incremental costs (ZAR) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by the pregnancy support grant over a 2-year time horizon. An ingredients-based approach to costing was completed from a governmental perspective. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The intervention resulted in a cost saving of R13.8 billion ($930 million, 95% CI: ZAR3.91 billion - ZAR23.2 billion/ $1.57 billion - $264 million) and averted 59,000 DALYs (95% CI: -6,400-110,000), indicating that the intervention is highly cost-effective. The primary cost driver was low birthweight requiring neonatal intensive care, with a disaggregated incremental cost of R31,800 ($2,149) per pregnancy. Mortality contributed most significantly to the DALYs accrued in the comparator (0.68 DALYs). The intervention remained the dominant strategy in the sensitivity analyses. The pregnancy support grant is a highly cost-effective solution for supporting expecting mothers and ensuring healthy pregnancies. With its positive impact on child health outcomes, there is a clear imperative for government to implement this grant. By investing in this program, cost savings could be leveraged. The implementation of this grant should be given high priority in public health and social policies.

A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Cleft Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What is Needed?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review that summarizes the cost-effectiveness of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) based on existing literature.

DESIGN

We searched eleven electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2000 to December 29, 2020. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020148402). Two reviewers independently conducted primary and secondary screening, and data extraction.

SETTING

All CL/P cost-effectiveness analyses in LMIC settings.

PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS

In total, 2883 citations were screened. Eleven articles encompassing 1,001,675 patients from 86 LMICs were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We used cost-effectiveness thresholds of 1% to 51% of a country's gross domestic product per capita (GDP/capita), a conservative threshold recommended for LMICs. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.

RESULTS

Primary CL/P repair was cost-effective at the threshold of 51% of a country's GDP/capita across all studies. However, only 1 study met at least 70% of the JBI criteria. There is a need for context-specific cost and health outcome data for primary CL/P repair, complications, and existing multidisciplinary management in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing economic evaluations suggest primary CL/P repair is cost-effective, however context-specific local data will make future cost-effectiveness analyses more relevant to local decision-makers and lead to better-informed resource allocation decisions in LMICs.

Do national health priorities align with Global Burden of Disease estimates on disease burden? An analysis of national health plans and official governmental websites

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the alignment of national health priorities with a country's burden of disease as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

METHODS

We identified priorities in national health plans and the 20 most burdensome conditions measured by DALYs from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study. We computed point-biserial correlations (rpb) between DALYs and being nominated as a health priority and the pooled proportion (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as a priority across countries.

RESULTS

We identified national health plans and official governmental websites in 145 countries. There was little to no correlation (rpb = 0.06, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.09) between national DALY data and whether a condition was nominated as a health priority. The pooled proportion of the 20 most burdensome conditions nominated as priorities across countries was 46%. HIV/AIDS had the greatest number of nominations as a national health priority (62 countries) as well as the greatest match with the burden of disease (among the top 20 most burdensome conditions in 51 [82%] countries). Low back pain, headache disorders and congenital birth defects had the lowest proportion of nominations as health priorities in countries where they were in the top 20 most burdensome conditions (6%, 6% and 11%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Globally, there were low correlations between national health priorities and GBD estimates on disease burden. Failing to prioritise health priorities according to burden may mean that insufficient resources have been directed to improve health outcomes for people with those health conditions.

Development of the Indian Reference Case for undertaking economic evaluation for health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) is globally recognised as an important tool to guide evidence-based decision-making. However, heterogeneity in methods limits the use of any such evidence. The current research was undertaken to develop a set of standards for conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in India, referred to as the Indian Reference Case.

Methods

Development of the reference case comprised of a four-step process: (i) review of existing international HTA guidelines; (ii) systematic review of economic evaluations for three countries to assess adherence with pre-existing country-specific HTA guidelines; (iii) empirical analysis to assess the impact of alternate assumptions for key principles of economic evaluation on the results of cost-effectiveness analysis; (iv) stakeholder consultations to assess appropriateness of the recommendations. Based on the inferences drawn from the first three processes, a preliminary draft of the reference case was developed, which was finalised based on stakeholder consultations.

Findings

The Indian Reference Case provides twelve recommendations on eleven key principles of economic evaluation: decision problem, comparator, perspective, source of effectiveness evidence, measure of costs, health outcomes, time-horizon, discounting, heterogeneity, uncertainty analysis and equity analysis, and for presentation of results. The recommendations are user-friendly and have scope to allow for context-specific flexibility.

Interpretation

The Indian Reference Case is expected to provide guidance in planning, conducting, and reporting of economic evaluations. It is anticipated that adherence to the Reference Case would increase the quality and policy utilisation of future evaluations. However, with advancement in the field of health economics efforts aimed at refining the Indian Reference Case would be needed.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The research was undertaken as part of doctoral thesis of Sharma D, who received scholarship from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi, India.

Use of Utility and Disability Weights in Economic Evaluation of Pediatric Vaccines

OBJECTIVE

To describe how utility weights and disability weights have been used in the context of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs)-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of pediatric vaccines for infectious diseases and assess the comparability between weights.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of CEAs of pediatric vaccines for 16 infectious diseases, published between January 2013 and December 2020 and using QALYs or DALYs as outcome measure. Data on values and sources of weights for the estimation of QALYs and DALYs were extracted from studies and compared across similar health states. Reporting was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

Out of 2154 articles identified, 216 CEAs met our inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 157 used utility weights and 59 used disability weights in their valuation of health states. In QALY studies, the source, background, who's preferences (adults'/children's) were applied and adjustments made to utility weights were poorly reported. In DALY studies, the Global Burden of Disease study was most often referenced. Valuation weights for similar health states varied within QALY studies and between DALY and QALY studies, but no systematic differences were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified considerable gaps in the way valuation weights are used and reported on in CEA. The nonstandardized use of weights may lead to different conclusions about cost-effectiveness of vaccines and policy decisions.

An intensive model of care for hepatitis C virus screening and treatment with direct-acting antivirals in people who inject drugs in Nairobi, Kenya: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment is essential for eliminating HCV in people who inject drugs (PWID), but has limited coverage in resource-limited settings. We measured the cost-effectiveness of a pilot HCV screening and treatment intervention using directly observed therapy among PWID attending harm reduction services in Nairobi, Kenya.

DESIGN

We utilized an existing model of HIV and HCV transmission among current and former PWID in Nairobi to estimate the cost-effectiveness of screening and treatment for HCV, including prevention benefits versus no screening and treatment. The cure rate of treatment and costs for screening and treatment were estimated from intervention data, while other model parameters were derived from literature. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a life-time horizon from the health-care provider's perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

SETTING

Nairobi, Kenya.

POPULATION

PWID.

MEASUREMENTS

Treatment costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per disability-adjusted life year averted).

FINDINGS

The cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted for the intervention was $975, with 92.1% of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations falling below the per capita gross domestic product for Kenya ($1509; commonly used as a suitable threshold for determining whether an intervention is cost-effective). However, the intervention was not cost-effective at the opportunity cost-based cost-effectiveness threshold of $647 per disability-adjusted life-year averted. Sensitivity analyses showed that the intervention could provide more value for money by including modelled estimates for HCV disease care costs, assuming lower drug prices ($75 instead of $728 per course) and excluding directly-observed therapy costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current strategy of screening and treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) among people who inject drugs in Nairobi is likely to be highly cost-effective with currently available cheaper drug prices, if directly-observed therapy is not used and HCV disease care costs are accounted for.

Bridging the gap: aligning economic research with disease burden

Introduction

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is critical for identifying high-value interventions that address significant unmet need. This study examines whether CEA study volume is proportionate to the burden associated with 21 major disease categories.

Methods

We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA and Global Health CEA Registries for studies published between 2010 and 2019 that measured cost per quality-adjusted life-year or cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY). Stratified by geographical region and country income level, the relationship between literature volume and disease burden (as measured by 2019 Global Burden of Disease estimates of population DALYs) was analysed using ordinary least squares linear regression. Additionally, the number of CEAs per intervention deemed ‘essential’ for universal health coverage by the Disease Control Priorities Network was assessed to evaluate how many interventions are supported by cost-effectiveness evidence.

Results

The results located below the regression line but with relatively high burden suggested disease areas that were ‘understudied’ compared with expected study volume. Understudied disease areas varied by region. Higher-income and upper-middle-income country (HUMIC) CEA volume for non-communicable diseases (eg, mental/behavioural disorders) was 100-fold higher than that in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). LLMIC study volume remained concentrated in HIV/AIDS as well as other communicable and neglected tropical diseases. Across 60 essential interventions, only 33 had any supporting CEA evidence, and only 21 had a decision context involving a low-income or middle-income country. With the exception of one intervention, available CEA evidence revealed the 21 interventions to be cost-effective, with base-case findings less than three times the GDP per capita.

Conclusion

Our analysis highlights disease areas that require significant policy attention. Research gaps for highly prevalent, lethal or disabling diseases, as well as essential interventions may be stifling potential efficiency gains. Large research disparities between HUMICs and LLMICs suggest funding opportunities for improving allocative efficiency in LLMIC health systems.

Using QALYs versus DALYs to measure cost-effectiveness: How much does it matter?

OBJECTIVES

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) are commonly used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to measure health benefits. We sought to quantify and explain differences between QALY- and DALY-based cost-effectiveness ratios, and explore whether using one versus the other would materially affect conclusions about an intervention's cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We identified CEAs using both QALYs and DALYs from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry and Global Health CEA Registry, with a supplemental search to ensure comprehensive literature coverage. We calculated absolute and relative differences between the QALY- and DALY-based ratios, and compared ratios to common benchmarks (e.g., 1× gross domestic product per capita). We converted reported costs into US dollars.

RESULTS

Among eleven published CEAs reporting both QALYs and DALYs, seven focused on pharmaceuticals and infectious disease, and five were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies concluded that the intervention was "dominant" (cost-saving). Among the QALY- and DALY-based ratios reported from the remaining seven studies, absolute differences ranged from approximately $2 to $15,000 per unit of benefit, and relative differences from 6-120 percent, but most differences were modest in comparison with the ratio value itself. The values assigned to utility and disability weights explained most observed differences. In comparison with cost-effectiveness thresholds, conclusions were consistent regardless of the ratio type in ten of eleven cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that although QALY- and DALY-based ratios for the same intervention can differ, differences tend to be modest and do not materially affect comparisons to common cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Growth and capacity for cost-effectiveness analysis in Africa

As economic evaluation becomes increasingly essential to support universal health coverage (UHC), we aim to understand the growth, characteristics, and quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) conducted for Africa and to assess institutional capacity and relationship patterns among authors. We searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registries and four databases to identify CEAs for Africa. After extracting relevant information, we examined study characteristics, cost-effectiveness ratios, individual and institutional contribution to the literature, and network dyads at the author, institution, and country levels. The 358 identified CEAs for Africa primarily focused on sub-Saharan Africa (96%) and interventions for communicable diseases (77%). Of 2,121 intervention-specific ratios, 8% were deemed cost-saving, and most evaluated immunizations strategies. As 64% of studies included at least one African author, we observed widespread collaboration among international researchers and institutions. However, only 23% of first authors were affiliated with African institutions. The top producers of CEAs among African institutions are more adherent to methodological and reporting guidelines. Although economic evidence in Africa has grown substantially, the capacity for generating such evidence remains limited. Increasing the ability of regional institutions to produce high-quality evidence and facilitate knowledge transfer among African institutions has the potential to inform prioritization decisions for designing UHC.

Integrating Economic Evaluation and Implementation Science to Advance the Global HIV Response

BACKGROUND

Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses have indicated good value for money from a wide array of interventions for treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS. There is limited evidence, however, regarding how cost-effectiveness information contributes to better decision-making around investment and action in the global HIV response.

METHODS

We review challenges for economic evaluation relevant to the global HIV response and consider how the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis could integrate approaches and insights from implementation science to enhance the impact and efficiency of HIV investments.

RESULTS

In light of signals that cost-effectiveness analyses may be vulnerable to systematic bias toward overly optimistic conclusions, we emphasize two priorities for advancing the field of economic evaluation in HIV/AIDS and more broadly in global health: (1) systematic reevaluation of the cost-effectiveness literature with reference to ex-post empirical evidence on costs and effects in real-world programs and (2) development and adoption of good-practice guidelines for incorporating implementation and delivery aspects into economic evaluations. Toward the latter aim, we propose an integrative approach that focuses on comparative evaluation of strategies, which specify both technologies/interventions as well as the delivery platforms, complementary interventions, and actions needed to increase coverage, quality, and uptake of those technologies/interventions. Specific recommendations draw on several existing implementation science models that provide systematic frameworks for understanding implementation barriers and enablers, designing and choosing specific implementation and policy actions, and evaluating outcomes.

DISCUSSION

These preliminary steps aimed at bridging the divide between economic evaluation and implementation science can help to advance the practice of economic evaluation toward a science of comparative strategy evaluation.

Economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS: bibliometric analysis on research development and scopes (GAPRESEARCH)

Background

The rapid decrease in international funding for HIV/AIDS has been challenging for many nations to effectively mobilize and allocate their limited resources for HIV/AIDS programs. Economic evaluations can help inform decisions and strategic planning. This study aims to examine the trends and patterns in economic evaluation studies in the field of HIV/AIDS and determine their research landscapes.

Methods

Using the Web of Science databases, we synthesized the number of papers and citations on HIV/AIDS and economic evaluation from 1990 to 2017. Collaborations between authors and countries, networks of keywords and research topics were visualized using frequency of co-occurrence and Jaccards’ similarity index. A Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) analysis to categorize papers into different topics/themes.

Results

A total of 372 economic evaluation papers were selected, including 351 cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), 11 cost-utility analyses (CUA), 12 cost-benefit analyses (CBA). The growth of publications, their citations and usages have increased remarkably over the years. Major research topics in economic evaluation studies consisted of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and treatment; drug use prevention interventions and prevention of mother-to-child transmission interventions. Moreover, lack of contextualized evidence was found in specific settings with high burden HIV epidemics, as well as emerging most-at-risk populations such as trans-genders or migrants.

Conclusion

This study highlights the knowledge and geographical discrepancies in HIV/AIDS economic evaluation literature. Future research directions are also informed for advancing economic evaluation in HIV/AIDS research.

Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies

BACKGROUND

The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).

METHODS

We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014-2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification.

RESULTS

Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological).

CONCLUSIONS

The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential.

Cost effectiveness and affordability of trastuzumab in sub-Saharan Africa for early stage HER2-positive breast cancer

Background

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide, the most common among women, and the most frequent cause of death among women in less developed regions. Trastuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that downregulates the extracellular domain of the HER2 protein. Using trastuzumab to treat women with localized HER2-positive breast cancer has been shown to improve survival. The objective of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab, from a societal perspective, in 11 African countries. In addition, we aimed to establish value-based prices for trastuzumab based on the gross domestic product per capita in each country.

Methods

We developed a Markov model in order to assess the costs and benefits associated with trastuzumab treatment over a lifetime horizon. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed in order to estimate the impact of uncertainty of parameter-values on the results. Efficacy inputs were derived using clinical trial data from non-African countries.

Results

In the base case analysis, trastuzumab yielded a gain ranging from 0.92 LYs in Nigeria to 1.07 LYs in South Africa, and 0.9 QALYs in Nigeria to 1.02 QALYs in South Africa. The incremental cost ranged from 19,561 USD in Nigeria to 19,997 USD in Congo, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from 19,534 USD/QALY in South Africa to 21,697 USD/QALY in Nigeria. Using willingness to pay estimates based on World Health Organization recommendations, trastuzumab appear to not be cost-effective in all countries analyzed. Cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to the discount rate, trastuzumab cost, and the hazard ratio.

Conclusions

Trastuzumab does not appear to be cost effective in the African countries analyzed. In order for trastuzumab to be cost-effective, the costs of treatment would require significant discounts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-019-0174-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Investing in non-communicable disease prevention and management to advance the Sustainable Development Goals

Reduction of the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden is a global development imperative. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 includes target 3·4 to reduce premature NCD mortality by a third by 2030. Progress on SDG target 3·4 will have a central role in determining the success of at least nine SDGs. A strengthened effort across multiple sectors with effective economic tools, such as price policies and insurance, is necessary. NCDs are heavily clustered in people with low socioeconomic status and are an important cause of medical impoverishment. They thereby exacerbate economic inequities within societies. As such, NCDs are a barrier to achieving SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 4, SDG 5, and SDG 10. Productivity gains from preventing and managing NCDs will contribute to SDG 8. SDG 11 and SDG 12 offer clear opportunities to reduce the NCD burden and to create sustainable and healthy cities.