QALYs: are they helpful to decision makers?

Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies

INTRODUCTION

The health and economic consequences of inadequately treated opioid use disorder (OUD) are substantial. Healthcare systems in the United States (US) and other countries are facing a growing healthcare crisis due to opioids. Although effective medications for OUD exist, relying solely on clinical information is insufficient for addressing the opioid crisis.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the role of pharmacoeconomic studies in informing evidence-based medication treatment for OUD is discussed, with a particular emphasis on the US healthcare system, where the economic burden is significantly higher than the global average. The scope/objective of pharmacoeconomics as a distinct scientific research program is briefly defined, followed by a discussion of existing evidence informed by data from systematic reviews, in addition to a convenience sample of recently published pharmacoeconomic studies and protocols. The review also explores the need for methodological advancements in the field.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the potential of pharmacoeconomic research in shaping evidence-based medicine for OUD, significant challenges limiting its real-world application remain. How to address these challenges are explored, including how to combine cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses to address the needs of the healthcare system as a whole and specific stakeholders interested in adopting new OUD treatment strategies.

Economic evaluations of medical devices in paediatrics: a systematic review and a quality appraisal of the literature

BACKGROUND

Although economic evaluations (EEs) have been increasingly applied to medical devices, little discussion has been conducted on how the different health realities of specific populations may impact the application of methods and the ensuing results. This is particularly relevant for pediatric populations, as most EEs on devices are conducted in adults, with specific aspects related to the uniqueness of child health often being overlooked. This study provides a review of the published EEs on devices used in paediatrics, assessing the quality of reporting, and summarising methodological challenges.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify peer-reviewed publications on the economic value of devices used in paediatrics in the form of full EEs (comparing both costs and consequences of two or more devices). After the removal of duplicates, article titles and abstracts were screened. The remaining full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for inclusion. In-vitro diagnostic devices were not considered in this review. Study descriptive and methodological characteristics were extracted using a structured template. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. A narrative synthesis of the results was conducted followed by a critical discussion on the main challenges found in the literature.

RESULTS

39 full EEs were eligible for review. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (67%) and focused on high-risk therapeutic devices (72%). Studies comprised 25 cost-utility analyses, 13 cost-effectiveness analyses and 1 cost-benefit analysis. Most of the studies considered a lifetime horizon (41%) and a health system perspective (36%). Compliance with the CHEERS 2022 items varied among the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the scant body of evidence on EEs focusing on devices in paediatrics results highlight the need to improve the quality of reporting and advance methods that can explicitly incorporate the multiple impacts related to the use of devices with distinct characteristics, as well as consider specific child health realities. The design of innovative participatory approaches and instruments for measuring outcomes meaningful to children and their families should be sought in future research.

Characterization of health-related quality of life based on the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire in head-and-neck cancer patients undergoing modern radiotherapy

Background: Patient-reported quality of life in cancer patients is becoming increasingly important, especially for head-and-neck (H&N) cancers, which are at risk of experiencing severe treatment-related toxicities. Therefore, we sought to characterize the peritherapeutic HRQOL of contemporary patients using the well-validated EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire. Methods: All patients receiving radiotherapy for H&N cancers between July 2019 and November 2019 at the University of Freiburg Medical Center who completed the first two follow-ups were included. Results: All 49 patients completed the questionnaires at all time points of data collection, yielding 196 total questionnaires. The mean EQ-5D-5 L index score of the overall population before radiotherapy, after radiotherapy, and three and six months following radiotherapy was 0.837 (standard deviation, SD 0.17), 0.828 (SD 0.16), 0.855 (SD 0.15), and 0.856 (SD 0.14) respectively. The respective mean EQ VAS scores were 63.88 (SD 20.72), 63.67 (SD 21.81), 63.67 (SD 21.81), and 65.20 (SD 22.41) respectively. The respective changes of the HI and EQ VAS score over time for this cohort were not significant (Friedman test p = 0.273, p = 0.618). Conclusion: Despite the known therapy-related toxicities, no significant permanent deterioration of HRQOL in this cohort was observed.

Helicobacter pylori "Test-and-Treat" strategy with urea breath test: A cost-effective strategy for the management of dyspepsia and the prevention of ulcer and gastric cancer in Spain-Results of the Hp-Breath initiative

BACKGROUND

Data from clinical trials comparing Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) management strategies in patients with dyspepsia are limited. Cost-effectiveness simulation models might help to identify the optimal strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the H. pylori "Test and Treat" (T&T) strategy including the use of urea breath test (UBT) vs symptomatic treatment (ST) and vs upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) as a first procedure in patients with dyspepsia.

METHODS

Three main strategies: "T&T" strategy including the use of UBT, "UGE" and "ST" have been compared using cost-effectiveness models developed in accordance with the Spanish medical practice. For the model simulations, a time horizon of 4 weeks was considered for the endpoint "Dyspepsia symptoms relief" and 10 years when using "Peptic ulcer avoided" and "Gastric cancer avoided" endpoints.

RESULTS

For the endpoint "Dyspepsia symptoms relief", T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (883€/success) compared to UGE strategy and to ST strategy (respectively 1628€ and 990€/success). For the endpoint "Probability of peptic ulcer", the T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (421€/peptic ulcer avoided/y) compared to UGE strategy and ST strategy (respectively 728€ and 632€/peptic ulcer avoided/y). For the endpoint "Gastric cancer avoided", the T&T strategy appears to be the most cost-effective (524€/gastric cancer avoided/y) compared to UGE strategy and "ST" strategy (respectively 716€ and 696€/gastric cancer avoided/y).

CONCLUSIONS

T&T strategy including the use of UBT is the most cost-effective medical approach for management of dyspepsia and for the prevention of ulcer and gastric cancer.

Review of Recent US Value Frameworks-A Health Economics Approach: An ISPOR Special Task Force Report [6]

The sixth section of our Special Task Force (STF) report reviews and comments on recent US-oriented value assessment frameworks, specifically those published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Research, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. We review published commentaries that address the validity, reliability, and conceptual underpinnings of these frameworks. We find common themes of critique regarding the strengths and limitations across frameworks. Particular shortcomings of some frameworks pose greater threats to their face validity and utility compared with others. The most significant limitations include lack of clear perspective (e.g., patient vs. health plan) and poor transparency in accounting for costs and benefits. We then review how each framework adheres to core STF recommendations, with particular emphasis on whether the framework can be used to support coverage decisions by health insurers, and whether it adheres to core principles of cost-effectiveness analysis. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Research framework most closely adheres to core STF recommendations. Others have significant limitations that vary widely from framework to framework. We also review how the frameworks follow STF recommendations for addressing potentially relevant issues beyond cost-effectiveness analysis - for example, equity in resource allocation and patient heterogeneity. Finally, we review whether and how each framework uses value thresholds and addresses affordability concerns. We conclude with suggestions for further research, particularly in the areas of testing the measurement and use of novel elements of value and deliberative processes.

Cost–effectiveness in colorectal cancer: challenges on quality and comparability

Costs in colorectal cancer treatment are rising, especially since the availability of expensive targeted drugs. Comparisons between cost–effectiveness evaluations are restricted to differences in applied methodology, for example, differences in model assumptions and design, healthcare systems. Cost–effectiveness analyses should be performed and reported upon in a standardized manner within a disease area and in particular in oncology to facilitate better comparisons between treatments. Ideally, to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of a treatment in daily practice, models should be based on patient cohort studies or registries with appropriate prospective data collection from a societal perspective. Randomized clinical trials remain most suitable for comparison of treatment strategies and could estimate the budget impact of a novel treatment introduction.

Differences in EQ-5D-3L health state valuations among patients with musculoskeletal diseases, health care professionals and healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

Results from existing studies indicate that different respondent groups' health state valuations in cost-utility analyses are not equivalent.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives in our study were to analyse differences in health state valuations among three respondent groups in the context of medical rehabilitation in Germany.

METHODS

Using the time trade-off (TTO) technique, valuations of EQ-5D-3L health states were obtained from patients with musculoskeletal diseases, healthy volunteers and health care professionals. We used linear mixed models to predict TTO utilities and specified and tested interaction effects.

RESULTS

We identified statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences among the three groups in six out of 42 health states. On average, patients' TTO values were somewhat higher compared with other respondent groups. Most of these differences occurred in severe health states. Mean differences and mean absolute differences were 0.02 and 0.14 for patients vs healthy volunteers and 0.06 and 0.14 for patients vs health care professionals. Furthermore, significant effects among respondents were observed for seven of the 22 possible interactions describing differences between respondent groups. Coefficients associated with significant interaction effects ranged from 0.08 to 0.18 (absolute values).

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that TTO valuations of health states differ depending on the specific respondent group from which valuations are obtained. On average, these differences were small. However, researchers and decision makers should remain aware of these differences when interpreting incremental cost-utility assessments.

The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012

OBJECTIVES

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have been published widely over the years to measure the value of health care interventions. We investigated the growth and characteristics of CUAs in the peer-reviewed English-language literature through 2012.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, a database containing more than 3700 English-language CUAs published through 2012. We summarized various study characteristics (e.g., intervention type, funding source, and journal of publication) and methodological practices (e.g., use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis) over three time periods: 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2009, and 2010 to 2012. We also examined CUAs by country, region, and the degree to which diseases studied correlate with disease burden.

RESULTS

The number of published CUAs rose from 34 per year from 1990 to 1999 to 431 per year from 2010 to 2012. The proportion of studies focused on the United States declined from 61% during 1990 to 1999 to 35% during 2010 to 2012 (P < 0.0001). Although still small compared with CUAs in higher income countries, the number of CUAs focused on lower and middle-income countries has risen sharply. A large fraction of studies pertain to pharmaceuticals (46% during 2010-2012). In recent years, most studies included probabilistic sensitivity analysis (67% during 2010-2012). Journals publishing CUAs vary widely in the percentage of their studies funded by drug companies. Some conditions, such as injuries, have high burden but few CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years. The data suggest growing interest in cost-utility methodology, particularly in non-Western countries.

Validation of the underlying assumptions of the quality-adjusted life-years outcome: results from the ECHOUTCOME European project

BACKGROUND

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) have been used since the 1980s as a standard health outcome measure for conducting cost-utility analyses, which are often inadequately labeled as 'cost-effectiveness analyses'. This synthetic outcome, which combines the quantity of life lived with its quality expressed as a preference score, is currently recommended as reference case by some health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. While critics of the QALY approach have expressed concerns about equity and ethical issues, surprisingly, very few have tested the basic methodological assumptions supporting the QALY equation so as to establish its scientific validity.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the ECHOUTCOME European project was to test the validity of the underlying assumptions of the QALY outcome and its relevance in health decision making.

METHODS

An experiment has been conducted with 1,361 subjects from Belgium, France, Italy, and the UK. The subjects were asked to express their preferences regarding various hypothetical health states derived from combining different health states with time durations in order to compare observed utility values of the couples (health state, time) and calculated utility values using the QALY formula.

RESULTS

Observed and calculated utility values of the couples (health state, time) were significantly different, confirming that preferences expressed by the respondents were not consistent with the QALY theoretical assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This European study contributes to establishing that the QALY multiplicative model is an invalid measure. This explains why costs/QALY estimates may vary greatly, leading to inconsistent recommendations relevant to providing access to innovative medicines and health technologies. HTA agencies should consider other more robust methodological approaches to guide reimbursement decisions.

Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of a fourth-generation synchronous telehealth program for the management of chronic cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Telehealth programs are a growing field in the care of patients. The evolution of information technology has resulted in telehealth becoming a fourth-generation synchronous program. However, long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness analysis of fourth-generation telehealth programs have not been reported in patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this study to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a fourth-generation synchronous telehealth program for patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 575 patients who had joined a telehealth program and compared them with 1178 patients matched for sex, age, and Charlson comorbidity index. The program included: (1) instant transmission of biometric data, (2) daily telephone interview, and (3) continuous decision-making support. Data on hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, and medical costs were collected from the hospital's database and were adjusted to the follow-up months.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64.5 years (SD 16.0). The mean number of monthly ED visits (mean 0.06 SD 0.13 vs mean 0.09 SD 0.23, P<.001), hospitalizations (mean 0.05 SD 0.12 vs mean 0.11 SD 0.21, P<.001), length of hospitalization (mean 0.77 days SD 2.78 vs mean 1.4 SD 3.6, P<.001), and intensive care unit admissions (mean 0.01 SD 0.07 vs mean 0.036 SD 0.14, P<.001) were lower in the telehealth group. The monthly mean costs of ED visits (mean US$20.90 SD 66.60 vs mean US$37.30 SD 126.20, P<.001), hospitalizations (mean US$386.30 SD 1424.30 vs mean US$878.20 SD 2697.20, P<.001), and all medical costs (mean US$587.60 SD 1497.80 vs mean US$1163.60 SD 3036.60, P<.001) were lower in the telehealth group. The intervention costs per patient were US$224.80 per month. Multivariate analyses revealed that age, telehealth care, and Charlson index were the independent factors for ED visits, hospitalizations, and length of hospitalization. A bootstrap method revealed the dominant cost-effectiveness of telehealth care over usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

Better cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes were noted with the use of a fourth-generation synchronous telehealth program in patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases. The intervention costs of this new generation of telehealth program do not increase the total costs for patient care.

Cost-effectiveness of mitral valve repair versus replacement by biologic or mechanical prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment strategies for mitral valve disease have progressively shifted toward repair given the better survival outcomes with this type of intervention. However, valve repairs and valve replacement may require reoperations with time. In the absence of clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of various mitral surgical treatments with time, we propose to develop cost-effectiveness models to compare sequential treatment strategies.

METHODS

Three simulation models were carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness of mitral valve repair as first-line treatment, compared with either mechanical or biologic valve replacements. Efficacy data were derived from both the published literature and from a specific clinical cohort of 582 patients treated for this condition. Using the French public health care system perspective, relevant direct costs were derived using a local resource utilization assessment and official costing data sources.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, costs per success were significantly lower (p < 0.01) for the mitral valve repair strategy versus biologic or mechanical valve replacements (€35,550, €49,492, and €54,634 per success, respectively). Over 20 years, costs per success were significantly lower (p < 0.01) for the mechanical valve replacement strategy compared with the mitral valve repair and biologic valve replacement (€94,763, €100,053, and €147,484 per success, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased referral rate in older patients with degenerative mitral valve disease, and their shorter life expectancy, these results show that when medically required and technically practicable, mitral valve repair should be considered as the first-line strategy.

Theory of constraints for publicly funded health systems

Originally developed in the context of publicly traded for-profit companies, theory of constraints (TOC) improves system performance through leveraging the constraint(s). While the theory seems to be a natural fit for resource-constrained publicly funded health systems, there is a lack of literature addressing the modifications required to adopt TOC and define the goal and performance measures. This paper develops a system dynamics representation of the classical TOC's system-wide goal and performance measures for publicly traded for-profit companies, which forms the basis for developing a similar model for publicly funded health systems. The model is then expanded to include some of the factors that affect system performance, providing a framework to apply TOC's process of ongoing improvement in publicly funded health systems. Future research is required to more accurately define the factors affecting system performance and populate the model with evidence-based estimates for various parameters in order to use the model to guide TOC's process of ongoing improvement.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of sequential biologic strategies for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in Finland

Objective:

The main objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic options in moderate or severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when a clinical response to a first TNF-blocker, either etanercept (ETA), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (INF), is insufficient.

Methods:

Effectiveness criteria were defined as remission (RS), low disease activity (LDAS), and moderate to high disease activity (MHDAS). Cost-effectiveness was derived as cost per day in RS and in LDAS using simulation modelling to assess six sequential biologic strategies over 2 years. Each sequential treatment strategy was composed of three biologic agents and included a first anti-TNF agent, ETA, ADA or INF, followed by either abatacept (ABA) or rituximab (RTX) as a second therapeutic option in case of an insufficient response, followed by another anti-TNF agent in case of further insufficient response.

Results:

Over two years and taking into account biologic costs, the following estimated mean costs per day in RS and LDAS were respectively of €829 and €428 for the biologic sequence composed of ADA-ABA-ETA, €1292 and €516 for the sequence ADA-RTX-ETA, €829 and €429 for the sequence ETA-ABA-ADA, €1292 and €517 for the sequence ETARTX- ADA, €840 and €434 for the sequence INF-ABA-ETA, and €1309 and €523 for the sequence INF-RTX-ETA.

Conclusion:

The treatment sequences including ABA as the second biologic option appear more cost-effective than those including RTX in a patients with moderate to severe RA and an insufficient response to a first anti-TNF agent.

A comparison of the superficial inferior epigastric artery flap and deep inferior epigastric perforator flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps in postmastectomy reconstruction.

METHODS

A decision analytic model with seven clinically important health outcomes (health states) was used, incorporating the Ontario Ministry of Health's perspective. Direct medical costs were estimated from a university-based hospital. The utilities of each health state converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from previously published data. Health state probabilities were computed from a systematic literature review. Analyses yielded SIEA and DIEP expected costs and QALYs allowing calculation of the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted under five plausible scenarios, assessing result robustness.

RESULTS

Five SIEA and 27 DIEP studies were identified. The baseline SIEA expected cost was slightly higher than that for the DIEP ($16,107 versus $16,095), with slightly higher QALYs (33.14 years versus 32.98 years), giving an ICUR of $77/QALY. Taking into account conversions from SIEA to DIEP, the ICUR increased to $4,480/QALY. Sensitivity analysis gave ICURs ranging from $2,614/QALY to 'dominant', all consistent with the adoption of the SIEA over the DIEP.

CONCLUSION

The best available evidence suggests the SIEA is a cost-effective procedure. However, given the high SIEA to DIEP conversion rates and small marginal differences in cost and effectiveness, the ICUR may be sensitive to minor changes in costs or QALYs. The 'truth' can only be obtained from a randomized, controlled trial comparing both techniques side by side, simultaneously capturing the costs of the competing interventions.

Modelling cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments based on disease activity scores for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in Spain

Background. The objective of this simulation model was to assess the cost-effectiveness of different biological treatment strategies based on levels of disease activity in Spain, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to at least one anti-TNF agent. Methods. Clinically meaningful effectiveness criteria were defined using DAS28 scores: remission and Low Disease Activity State (LDAS) thresholds. Monte-Carlo simulations were conducted to assess cost-effectiveness over 2 years of four biological sequential strategies composed of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, infliximab), abatacept or rituximab, in patients with moderate to severe active RA and an insufficient response to etanercept as first biological agent. Results. The sequential strategy including etanercept, abatacept and adalimumab appeared more efficacious over 2 years (102 days in LDAS) compared to the same sequence including rituximab as second biological option (82 days in LDAS). Cost-effectiveness ratios showed lower costs per day in LDAS with abatacept (427 €) compared to rituximab as second biological option (508 €). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria. Conclusion. Model results suggest that in patients with an insufficient response to anti-TNF agents, the biological sequences including abatacept appear more efficacious and cost-effective than similar sequences including rituximab or cycled anti-TNF agents.

Regulatory benefit-risk assessment and comparative effectiveness research: strangers, bedfellows or strange bedfellows?

Over the past 5 years, we have witnessed growing interest in both comparative effectiveness research (CER) and regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA). Both deal with benefits and harms, although at different stages of the product lifecycle. There are growing pressures for a more systematic and quantitative approach to regulatory BRA. However, there is also a need for CER - beyond the evidence that can reasonably be generated during pre-launch product development. Important regulatory and policy questions include the following: What would be a level playing field across disease areas and companies? Who should bear the costs of these studies? What role can benefit-risk modelling play? What is the value of research and how is it related to the prevalence of disease? What is the relationship between uncertainty and the value of evidence? We need to recognize the lifecycle nature of evidence generation, moving from the regulatory setting to the real world and affecting potentially hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of patients worldwide. We need to emphasize not only the public goods nature of information embedded in innovations, but also that it is global. Finally, we need to more systematically explore the benefits and costs of gathering further information - the value of research - recognizing that doing this requires a model or methodology, which we have, for systematically appraising our current state of knowledge and what could be gained from further research. All said, it would seem that BRA and CER should be neither strangers nor strange bedfellows, but may need to be coaxed into being bedfellows.

Evaluation of benefit-risk

Drug authorization, prescription and utilization are all based on benefit-risk assessment. This is made difficult by the apparent lack of objective means to measure the balance and by limitations regarding each of the two items. Benefit is sometimes measured by surrogate indicators of a real clinical advantage. It is assumed to be applicable to individuals even though it is measured in populations, and is represented in different ways that may convey different messages to physicians and patients. Risks are also hard to predict on an individual level. They may also be overlooked or revealed later than benefit, thus biasing the balance for a long time. Their causal relationship with the treatment is often not fully established. The benefit-risk balance itself has no generally recognized measure. This is why benefits and risks are hard to compare; either one or both may occur in single patients, and a risk-benefit profile that is acceptable in severe diseases may not be acceptable in diseases with a favourable prognosis. Pharmacoeconomics offers promising methods of health outcomes modelling using QALYs that take into consideration quality of life as well as survival. Primarily conceived as a guide for establishing the value of a treatment, they may prove useful as a means of trading efficacy and safety. However, quality of life is not always - or adequately - assessed in clinical studies. It is also not clear which is the most appropriate model to calculate QALYs for clinical purposes and how it can be used as a predictive tool at the individual level.

Improving efficiency and value in palliative care with net benefit regression: an introduction to a simple method for cost-effectiveness analysis with person-level data

The objective of this article is to illustrate how to do cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using net-benefit regression and to explain how this method provides all of the benefits CEA can provide for improving efficiency and value in palliative care. We use a hypothetical data set with person-level data to demonstrate the net-benefit regression framework. Cost and effect data are combined with assumptions about willingness to pay to produce a net-benefit variable for each study participant. This net-benefit variable is the dependent variable in a net-benefit regression. In the simplest formulation, the regression coefficient on the treatment indicator variable estimates the difference in value between extra benefits and extra costs. The estimate and its confidence interval provide policy-relevant information. Net-benefit regression can be used with data from clinical trials or from administrative data sets. The results can be used to help develop policy, with an aim toward improving efficiency and value in health care.

Cost-effectiveness modeling of intrathecal baclofen therapy versus other interventions for disabling spasticity

OBJECTIVE

To assess by simulation the cost-effectiveness of intrathecal baclofen (ITB) therapy compared with conventional medical treatments for patients with disabling spasticity and functional dependence caused by any neurological disease.

METHODS

Two models were created to simulate therapeutic strategies for managing severe spasticity, one with and one without the use of ITB, to assess various treatment sequences over 2 years based on current medical practices in France. Successful treatment at each evaluation was defined as a combination of: (1) the increased patient and caregiver satisfaction as assessed by goal attainment scaling (GAS), and (2) a decrease of at least 1 point on the Ashworth score. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using 5000 Monte-Carlo simulations taking into account specific distribution curves for direct costs and effectiveness parameters in each treatment option.

RESULTS

The model simulations suggest that including ITB as a first option strategy in the management of function of severely impaired patients with disabling spasticity results in a higher success rate (78.7% vs 59.3%; P < .001). In addition, the ITB therapy model revealed a lower cost (pound 59,391 vs pound 88,272; P < .001) and an overall more favorable cost-effectiveness ratio (pound 75,204/success vs pound 148,822/success; P < .001), compared with conventional medical management without ITB.

CONCLUSION

Within the assumptions of our modeling, ITB therapy evaluated by a combination of treatment success criteria at 6-month intervals over a 2-year period may be a cost-effective strategy compared to conventional medical management alone.

The use of economic evaluation in hand surgery

This article explains the concepts of an economic evaluation relevant to evidence-based hand surgery. Cost-effectiveness analysis in hand surgery is increasingly important as health care resources become scarce in most jurisdictions. Hand surgeons need to incorporate the "manager of health care system" competency in their daily practice. Hand surgery literature may claim that "a novel hand technique" is more cost-effective than a prevailing one; it is important that hand surgeons and other users of clinical research appraise such innovation claims before adopting them in their practices. Clinical researchers can use the methodological principles described here for their cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-effectiveness sequential modeling of ranibizumab versus usual care in age-related macular degeneration

AIMS

To assess effectiveness, cost, and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus the current medical practices of treating age-related macular degeneration in France.

METHODS

A simulation decision framework over 1 year compared ranibizumab versus the usual care using two effectiveness criteria: the "visual acuity improvement rate" (greater than 15 letters on the ETDRS scale) and the "rate of legal blindness avoided". Two decision trees included various sequences of current treatments, with or without ranibizumab.

RESULTS

Ranibizumab appeared significantly more effective than the usual care (p < 0.001), providing greater treatment success rate of visual acuity improvement (48.8% versus 33.9%). The cost of the ranibizumab strategy was higher (9,123 euros over 1 year for ranibizumab versus 7,604 euros for the usual care) but the average cost-effectiveness was lower--18,721 euros/success for ranibizumab versus 22,543 euros/success for usual care (p < 0.001). Considering the "legal blindness avoided" success criterion, the ranibizumab strategy appeared significantly more effective (p < 0.001), providing greater treatment success rate for of legal blindness avoided than usual care (99.7% versus 93.1%) although it was more expensive (9,196 euros over 1 year for ranibizumab versus 5,713 euros for the usual care).

CONCLUSION

Ranibizumab significantly improved the rate of visual acuity improvement and reduced the rate of legal blindness. Ranibizumab appeared significantly more cost-effective than the usual treatments in terms of visual acuity improvement.

The use of QALY weights for QALY calculations: a review of industry submissions requesting listing on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2002-4

BACKGROUND

QALYs combine survival and health-related quality of life (QOL) into a single index, enabling judgements about the relative value for money of healthcare interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methods used for estimating QALY weights included in submissions by industry for listing of their products on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective descriptive review of submissions considered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) 2002-4.

DATA SOURCES

The database of submissions considered at PBAC meetings was obtained from the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Section of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Further information on each included submission was obtained in the form of the Pharmaceutical Evaluation Section commentary (expert report) on the submission.

METHODS

Submissions to the PBAC over 2002-4 presenting QALYs as an outcome measure were reviewed to identify the methods used to obtain preference-based QALY weights. Information was analyzed according to the approach taken to obtain QALY weights (multi-attribute utility instrument [MAUI], health state valuation [HSV] experiment for scaling the health states, or non-preference-based approach); the population from whom the QALY weights were obtained; the appropriateness of the population for the instrument; the recommendation made by the PBAC; and the main indicated category for use of the pharmaceutical. The approach and the population were classified as 'more appropriate' and 'less appropriate'. The 'more appropriate' approaches were where a MAUI was administered to patients who were currently experiencing the health states being valued, or when an HSV experiment was undertaken in either the general population to value a health state derived from clinical and QOL studies or a population of patients to value their own health state. All other approaches were considered 'less appropriate'.

RESULTS

MAUIs were used in 39% of approaches reporting QALYs; the most frequently used MAUI was the EQ-5D. HSV experiments were used in 36% of the approaches and generally drawn from the published literature. Non-preference-based approaches (24%) included rating scales, mapping transformations and consensus opinions. Responses from patients were used in 58% of the approaches, followed by healthcare professionals and investigators (24% and 9%, respectively). Healthcare professionals and investigators' responses were frequently used in non-preference-based approaches. Submissions for nervous system, infectious disease and neoplasms disease areas were less likely to have presented QALY weights derived from a 'more appropriate' approach. Of the approaches using 'more appropriate' populations and techniques, 56% were rejected by the PBAC compared with 66% of those using 'less appropriate' approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in the quality of QALY weights is troubling. The PBAC guidelines that applied over the period studied neither encouraged nor discouraged cost-utility analyses and provided only brief guidance on how QALY studies should be conducted. A consistent approach to the application of standard methods should be used when the QALY is used to inform decisions on resource allocation. The new PBAC guidelines released in 2006 provide more extensive guidance on derivation of QALY estimates and are more encouraging of the presentation of cost-utility analysis. MAUIs offer a straightforward approach to obtaining QALY weights, and ideally should be used routinely in relevant comparative randomized trials to assess patients' health states.

Users' guide to the orthopaedic literature: what is a cost-effectiveness analysis?

As the cost of healthcare continue to rise, orthopaedic surgeons are being pressured to practice cost-effective healthcare. Consequently, economic evaluation of treatment options are being reported more commonly in medical and surgical literature. As new orthopaedic procedures and treatments may improve patient outcome and function over traditional treatment options, the effect of the potentially higher costs of new treatments should be formally evaluated. Unfortunately, the resources available for healthcare spending are typically limited. Therefore, cost-effectiveness analyses have become an important and useful tool in informing which procedure or treatment to implement into practice. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a type of economic analysis that compares both the clinical outcomes and the costs of new treatment options to current treatment options or standards of care. For a clinician to be able to apply the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis to their practice, they must be able to critically review the available literature. Conducting an economic analysis is a challenging process, which has resulted in a number of published economic analyses that are of lower quality and may be fraught with bias. It is important that the reader of an economic analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis have the skills required to properly evaluate and critically appraise the methodology used before applying the recommendations to their practice. Using the principles of evidence-based medicine and the questions outlined in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Users' Guide to the Medical Literature, this article attempts to illustrate how to critically appraise a cost-effectiveness analysis in the orthopaedic surgery literature.

Cost-effectiveness of psoriasis therapy with etanercept in Germany

BACKGROUND

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of intermittent therapy with etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis in comparison to non-systemic therapy in Germany.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a cost-utility analysis using the endpoint costs per quality-adjusted life year gained (costs/QALY). For this purpose, we adapted a UK-based Markov model by means of resource use data that we derived from a German cost study. Efficacy data, information on frequency of adverse events and changes in quality of life were derived from three pooled clinical trials. We extrapolated the further course of the disease and its treatment over a 10 year course.

RESULTS

For patients with an initial Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) > 10 and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) > 10 the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etanercept compared to non-systemic therapy was 45,491 euro/QALY. For patients with PASI and DLQI > 15 costs/QALY were 32,058 euro and among patients with severe plaque psoriasis (DLQI and PASI > 20) 18,154 euro.

CONCLUSIONS

According to internationally accepted levels of cost-effectiveness thresholds, the intermittent treatment of (moderate to) severe plaque-type psoriasis with etanercept is a cost-effective measure within the German healthcare system.

Measuring health-related quality of life in drug clinical trials: is it given due importance?

AIM OF THE REVIEW

Efficacy estimations of drug clinical trials have been based on clinical measurements and survival rates. However, advances in psychometric techniques have allowed to incorporate a new dimension based on quality of life. Questionnaires aimed at measuring patients' health status outlook, now enable us to quantify the loss of quality of life caused by disease and the improvement that can be achieved by pharmacological treatments. The Aim of this study is to make a quantitative evaluation of the use of health related quality of life (HRQL) measures in drug clinical trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, in duplicate, of the five journals with highest contribution to the ACP Journal Club, i.e. New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine and the British Medical Journal. HRQL measures were evaluated in published articles referring to drug clinical trials.

RESULTS

We identified 193 articles that reported the results of clinical trials, of which 28 included QOL measures as secondary end points and two as primary end points: in total, these comprised 16% of the articles analysed. Discussion Without considering the relevance of HRQL measures as a tool in the allocation of resources, it should be included as a health outcome dimension in drug clinical trials. The absence of this evaluation in studies about chronic diseases that affects patients' daily life activities would not be justified.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQL measures are not used on a regular basis in drug clinical trials that are reported in the relevant literature. Systematic incorporation of QOL measures into clinical trials would make it possible to measure the benefit obtained from drug treatments taking into account the patients' perceptions. Moreover, it would encourage the development of prospective cost-effectiveness studies with patient recorded data in the context of clinical trials. Our findings have a direct impact on practice. Being conscious of the low use of HRQL in clinical trials, it could contribute to increase the demand for these measures by health care professionals. The manuscript is also a useful tool to identify where basic concepts about HRQL measures can be found.

Health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials: A review of study protocols at the Swedish Medical Products Agency

Objectives: Conducting economic evaluation in the context of clinical studies is common but has been the subject of extensive discussion due to its limitations. Various standard approaches and guidelines how such studies should be conducted have been proposed, but there is very limited information available about how common these studies are, what type of data that is collected, and how the quality of the protocols compares to the suggested standards. This study examines the prevalence and study design of health economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials in Sweden between 1995 and 2005.

Methods: A systematic assessment of clinical trial protocols that had arrived as applications to the Medical Products Agency between 1995 and 2005 was performed. Only protocols arriving during the first half of odd years within the time period were included.

Results: A total number of 680 protocols from 1995 to 2005 were examined, and among them, 14.4 percent included a health economic part. With the exception of year 2001, a trend toward an increased prevalence of economic evaluations next to clinical trials can be seen.

Conclusions: This study shows that economic evaluations alongside clinical trials are becoming more common, although most trials still lack a health economic part of the protocol. The information about the economic evaluation provided in the protocols is in many cases scarce, possibly due to the fact that there currently are no generally accepted and applied guidelines for economic evaluations in clinical trial protocols. Introducing requirements for detailed study plans also for the economic evaluation should improve the quality of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials.