Analysis sans frontières: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?

Indirectness (transferability) is critical when considering existing economic evaluations for GRADE Clinical Practice Guidelines: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

GRADE practice guideline developers often perform systematic reviews of potential economic evaluations to inform recommendation decision-making. We aimed to identify indirectness characteristics of economic evaluations, related to GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) theoretical frameworks, that influence selection of these articles.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit were systematically searched to May 2020 to identify indirectness characteristics relevant for economic evaluation transferability to GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) theoretical frameworks. Four reviewers screened citations to identify articles of any type that explored study characteristics most important or relevant to economic evaluation transferability, restricted to English language We generated frequencies of article features, used thematic analysis to summarize study characteristics and assessed certainty in the evidence using GRADE-CERQual.

RESULTS

We included 57 articles, with a dearth of empirical literature - some may have been missed. We identified 8 general themes and 28 sub-themes most important to transferability from 41% of articles. Moderate-to-high confidence evidence suggested that GRADE EtD domains of population, intervention and comparison research question elements, resource use estimation and methodology, and provider and decision-maker acceptability are most important indirectness study characteristics that economists consider when choosing economic evaluation outcomes for use in recommendation decision-making.

CONCLUSION

We have identified factors important for guideline developers to consider when selecting economic evaluations as research evidence. An economic competency on the development team facilitates these endeavors. This supports the GRADE Working Group's tenant of transparent reporting or availability of sufficient information elsewhere to assess indirectness.

Using Economic Evaluation to Inform Responses to the Opioid Epidemic in the United States: Challenges and Suggestions for Future Research

Background: Several aspects of the opioid epidemic and of public health care organization in the United States (US) make the conduct of economic evaluation and the design of policies to respond to this crisis particularly challenging. Objectives: This commentary offers suggestions for how economic evaluation may address and overcome four key features of the opioid epidemic: 1) its magnitude and geographical distribution, 2) its intersection with multiple epidemics, 3) its rapidly changing dynamics, 4) its multi-sectoral causes and consequences. Results: We first offer pragmatic suggestions to address the difficulties in delivering a coordinated response given the fragmented nature of health care in the US. In view of the broad suite of responses required to address opioid use disorder and its associated comorbidities, we highlight the need for economic evaluations which consider interventions throughout the continuum of care (i.e. primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention). We examine how the use of predictive modelling alongside economic evaluation might be adopted to address the rapidly evolving situation affecting distinct populations and geographic areas and encourage investments in epidemic preparedness. Finally, we propose methods to capture the interdependence of various sectors of government affected by the opioid crisis in economic evaluations to ensure optimal levels of investment towards a comprehensive response. Conclusions: The opioid epidemic in the US represents an unprecedented public health challenge, but sound epidemiological modelling and economic analysis can help to guide use of limited resources committed to addressing it in ways that can have greatest impact in limiting its adverse consequences.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To review, summarize, and analyze both similarities and differences of pharmacoeconomic (PE) guidelines, to enable researchers to access their characteristics and the current state of PE guidelines; furthermore, to learn which methodological issues still remain contested and to promote the methodological development of PE guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors performed a search for PE guidelines using PubMed, the Cochrane library database, and the websites of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Information of each guideline was extracted using a pre-designed extraction template, which included 22 aspects; the guidelines were summarized in the forms of charts, and their characteristics have been described.

RESULTS

A total of 40 PE guidelines were studied. The most common methodological issues include the types of analysis, sources for effectiveness, use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to measure outcomes, and use of incremental cost effectiveness ratios to present results. The majority of the guidelines preferred a cost utility analysis with outcomes expressed in terms of QALYs. Most of the guidelines preferred meta-analysis or meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials, and required a systematic review of all evidence. Issues that varied most in the guidelines were the choice of the comparator, recommended costs to be included, methods related to indirect cost calculations, methods of sensitivity analysis, and discounting rate.

CONCLUSION

A comparison of these guidelines revealed that a number of differences exist among them in several key aspects, and some critical methodological issues still exist, for which no best solution is available. Furthermore, efforts need to be made to develop harmonious methods for the PE, and to improve the transferability of the outcomes of PE evaluations.

A Time-Trend Economic Analysis of Cancer Drug Trials

BACKGROUND

Scientific advances have led to the discovery of novel treatments with high prices. The cost to publicly fund high-cost drugs may threaten the sustainability of drug budgets in different health care systems. In oncology, there are concerns that health-benefit gains are diminishing over time and that the economic evidence to support funding decisions is too limited.

METHODS

To assess the additional costs and benefits gained from oncology drugs over time, we used treatment protocols and efficacy results from U.S. Food and Drug Administration records to calculate cost-effectiveness ratios for drugs approved to treat first- and second-line metastatic or advanced breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancer during the years 1994-2013. We assessed reimbursement recommendations reached by health technology assessment agencies in the U.K., Australia, and Canada.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for 50 drugs approved by the U.S. regulator. The more recent approvals were often based on surrogate efficacy outcomes and had extremely high costs, often triple the costs of drugs approved in previous years. Over time, the effectiveness gains have increased for some cancer indications; however, for other indications (non-small cell lung and second-line colorectal cancer), the magnitude of gains in effectiveness decreased. Reimbursement recommendations for drugs with the highest cost-effectiveness ratios were the most inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of the clinical benefits that oncology drugs offer as a function of their cost has become highly complex, and for some clinical indications, health benefits are diminishing over time. There is an urgent need for better economic evidence from oncology drug trials and systematic processes to inform funding decisions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

High-cost oncology drugs may threaten the ability of health care systems to provide access to promising new drugs for patients. In order to make better drug-funding decisions and enable equitable access to breakthrough treatments, discussions in the oncology community should include economic evidence. This study summarizes the extra benefits and costs of newly approved drugs from pivotal trials during the postgenomic era of drug discovery. The reader will gain an appreciation of the need for economic evidence to make better drug-reimbursement decisions and the dynamics at play in today's oncology drug market.

Development of archetypes for non-ranking classification and comparison of European National Health Technology Assessment systems

INTRODUCTION

European countries are increasingly utilising health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement decision-making. However, the current European HTA environment is very diverse, and projects are already underway to initiate a more efficient and aligned HTA practice within Europe. This study aims to identify a non-ranking method for classifying the diversity of European HTA agencies process and the organisational architecture of the national regulatory review to reimbursement systems.

METHOD/RESULTS

Using a previously developed mapping methodology, this research created process maps to describe national processes for regulatory review to reimbursement for 33 European jurisdictions. These process maps enabled the creation of 2 HTA taxonomic sets. The confluence of the two taxonomic sets was subsequently cross-referenced to identify 10 HTA archetype groups.

DISCUSSION

HTA is a young, rapidly evolving field and it can be argued that optimal practices for performing HTA are yet to emerge. Therefore, a non-ranking classification approach could objectively characterise and compare the diversity observed in the current European HTA environment.

Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource implications in guideline development: article 6 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

INTRODUCTION

Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are based on the best available research evidence. This is the sixth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers for respiratory and other diseases on how to achieve this goal. In this article, we focused on integrating cost and resource information in guideline development and formulating recommendations focusing on four key questions.

METHODS

We addressed the following specific questions. (1) When is it important to incorporate costs, and/or resource implications, and/or cost-effectiveness, and/or affordability considerations in guidelines? (2) Which costs and which resource use should be considered in guidelines? (3)What sources of evidence should be used to estimate costs, resource use, and cost-effectiveness? (4) How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications, and affordability be taken into account explicitly? Our work was based on a prior review on this topic and our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Many authorities suggest that there is a need to include explicit consideration of costs, resource use, and affordability during guideline development. Where drug use is at issue, "explicit consideration" may need to involve only noting whether the price (easily determined and usually the main component of "acquisition cost") of a drug is high or low. Complex interventions such as rehabilitation services are to a greater degree setting- and system-dependent. Resources used, and the costs of those resources, will vary among systems, and formal identification by a guideline group of the resource requirements of a complex intervention is essential. A clinical guideline usually contains multiple recommendations, and in some cases there are hundreds. Defining costs and resource use for all of them-especially for multiple settings-is unlikely to be feasible. At present, disaggregated resource utilization accompanied by some cost information seems to be the most promising approach. The method for assigning values to costs, including external or indirect cost (such as time off work), can have a significant impact on the outcome of any economic evaluation. The perspective that the guideline assumes should be made explicit. Standards for evidence for clinical data are usually good-quality trials reporting a relevant endpoint that should be summarized in a systematic review. Like others, we are therefore proposing that the ideal sources of evidence for cost and resource utilization data for guideline development are systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that report resource utilization, with direct comparisons between the interventions of interest.

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for pediatric immunization in developing countries

CONTEXT

Developing countries face critical choices for introducing needed, effective, but expensive new vaccines, especially given the accelerated need to decrease the mortality of children under age five and the increased immunization resources available from international donors. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a tool that decision makers can use for efficiently allocating expanding resources. Its use in developing countries, however, lags behind that in industrialized countries.

METHODS

We explored how CEA could be made more relevant to immunization policymaking in developing countries by identifying the limitations for using CEA in developing countries and the impact of donor funding on the CEA estimation. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using formal search protocols and hand searching indexed and gray literature sources. We then systematically summarized the application of CEA in industrialized and developing countries through thematic analysis, focusing on pediatric immunization and methodological and contextual issues relevant to developing countries.

FINDINGS

Industrialized and developing countries use CEA differently. The use of the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) outcome measure and an alternative generalized cost-effectiveness analysis approach is restricted to developing countries. In pediatric CEAs, the paucity of evaluations and the lack of attention to overcoming the methodological limitations pertinent to children's cognitive and development distinctiveness, such as discounting and preference characterization, means that pediatric interventions may be systematically understudied and undervalued. The ability to generate high-quality CEA evidence in child health is further threatened by an inadequate consideration of the impact of donor funding (such as GAVI immunization funding) on measurement uncertainty and the determination of opportunity cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater attention to pediatric interventions and donor funding in the conduct of CEA could lead to better policies and thus more worthwhile and good-value programs to benefit children's health in developing countries.

A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice

OBJECTIVE

This article provides a systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information (VOI) in academia and practice and discusses where future research needs to be directed.

METHODS

Published VOI studies were identified by conducting a computerized search on Scopus and ISI Web of Science from 1980 until December 2011 using pre-specified search terms. Only full-text papers that outlined and discussed VOI methods for medical decision making, and studies that applied VOI and explicitly discussed the results with a view to informing healthcare decision makers, were included. The included papers were divided into methodological and applied papers, based on the aim of the study.

RESULTS

A total of 118 papers were included of which 50 % (n = 59) are methodological. A rapidly accumulating literature base on VOI from 1999 onwards for methodological papers and from 2005 onwards for applied papers is observed. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) is the preferred method of VOI to inform decision making regarding specific future studies, but real-life applications of EVSI remain scarce. Methodological challenges to VOI are numerous and include the high computational demands, dealing with non-linear models and interdependency between parameters, estimations of effective time horizons and patient populations, and structural uncertainties.

CONCLUSION

VOI analysis receives increasing attention in both the methodological and the applied literature bases, but challenges to applying VOI in real-life decision making remain. For many technical and methodological challenges to VOI analytic solutions have been proposed in the literature, including leaner methods for VOI. Further research should also focus on the needs of decision makers regarding VOI.

Health technology assessment in Poland and Scotland: comparison of process and decisions

OBJECTIVES

We compared Polish and Scottish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process in order to elicit recommendations for future development of HTA methodological guidelines in Poland.

METHODS

We studied the differences between Polish and Scottish HTA methodological guidelines. HTA recommendations issued by Polish HTA agency (AHTAPol) in the period January 1 through December 31, 2008, were benchmarked to HTA guidance published by Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC) for the same drug technology.

RESULTS

The Scottish HTA methodological guidelines were more instructive in terms of clinical and economic evaluations than Polish guidelines. SMC evaluated forty-eight of sixty-eight drug technologies appraised by AHTAPoL. There were thirty drug technologies that received similar guidance in both countries and eighteen with contradictory HTA recommendations. In Scotland, there were more positive HTA recommendations than there were in Poland. While comments about efficacy or safety were commonplace among reasons for negative recommendations in Poland, insufficient justification of treatment's cost in relation to benefits was the most often cited reason for rejection in Scotland. SMC tended to recommend restricted use to specific sub-populations for several drug technologies negatively appraised by AHTAPoL.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison between SMC and AHTAPoL suggests that there is potential room of improvement of the Polish HTA methodological guidelines. Comparative effectiveness and safety, subgroup analysis, and adaptation of models to local settings were identified as key areas for further development of Polish HTA methodological guidelines.

Deriving input parameters for cost-effectiveness modeling: taxonomy of data types and approaches to their statistical synthesis

BACKGROUND

The evidence base informing economic evaluation models is rarely derived from a single source. Researchers are typically expected to identify and combine available data to inform the estimation of model parameters for a particular decision problem. The absence of clear guidelines on what data can be used and how to effectively synthesize this evidence base under different scenarios inevitably leads to different approaches being used by different modelers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to produce a taxonomy that can help modelers identify the most appropriate methods to use when synthesizing the available data for a given model parameter.

METHODS

This article developed a taxonomy based on possible scenarios faced by the analyst when dealing with the available evidence. While mainly focusing on clinical effectiveness parameters, this article also discusses strategies relevant to other key input parameters in any economic model (i.e., disease natural history, resource use/costs, and preferences).

RESULTS

The taxonomy categorizes the evidence base for health economic modeling according to whether 1) single or multiple data sources are available, 2) individual or aggregate data are available (or both), or 3) individual or multiple decision model parameters are to be estimated from the data. References to examples of the key methodological developments for each entry in the taxonomy together with citations to where such methods have been used in practice are provided throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the taxonomy developed in this article hopes to improve the quality of the synthesis of evidence informing decision models by bringing to the attention of health economics modelers recent methodological developments in this field.

Methodological quality of economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

In the Netherlands, decisions about the reimbursement of new pharmaceuticals are based on cost effectiveness, as well as therapeutic value and budget impact. Since 1 January 2005, drug manufacturers are formally required to substantiate the cost effectiveness of drugs that have therapeutic added value in comparison with existing ones through pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research provide methods guidance, ensuring consistency in both the evidence and the decision-making process about drug reimbursement.

AIM

This study reviewed the methodological quality of all 21 formally required pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals between 1 January 2005 and 1 October 2008, and verified whether these evaluations complied with pharmacoeconomic guidelines.

METHODS

Data on the quality of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations were extracted from the pharmacoeconomic reports published by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (CVZ). The Board's newsletters provided information on the advice to, and reimbursement decisions made by, the Dutch Minister of Health. All data extraction was carried out by two independent reviewers, and descriptive analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The methodological quality was sound in only 8 of the 21 pharmacoeconomic evaluations. In most cases, the perspective of analysis, the comparator drugs, and the reporting of both total and incremental costs and effects were correct. However, drug indication, form (i.e. cost utility/cost effectiveness) and time horizon of the evaluations were frequently flawed. Moreover, the costs and effects of the pharmaceuticals were not always analysed correctly, and modelling studies were often non-transparent. Twelve drugs were reimbursed, and nine were not.

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance with pharmacoeconomic guidelines in economic evaluations of new pharmaceuticals can be improved. This would improve the methodological quality of the pharmacoeconomic evaluations and ensure consistency in the evidence and the decision-making process for drug reimbursement in the Netherlands.

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

BACKGROUND

XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).

RESULTS

XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was $2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was $240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was $16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37% greater than that of XELOX. The addition of the societal costs increased the total treatment cost per patient to $17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.

CONCLUSION

XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.

Reimbursement of pharmaceuticals: reference pricing versus health technology assessment

Reference pricing and health technology assessment are policies commonly applied in order to obtain more value for money from pharmaceuticals. This study focussed on decisions about the initial price and reimbursement status of innovative drugs and discussed the consequences for market access and cost. Four countries were studied: Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These countries have operated one, or both, of the two policies at certain points in time, sometimes in parallel. Drugs in four groups were considered: cholesterol-lowering agents, insulin analogues, biologic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and "atypical" drugs for schizophrenia. Compared with HTA, reference pricing is a relatively blunt instrument for obtaining value for money from pharmaceuticals. Thus, its role in making reimbursement decisions should be limited to drugs which are therapeutically equivalent. HTA is a superior strategy for obtaining value for money because it addresses not only price but also the appropriate indications for the use of the drug and the relation between additional value and additional costs. However, given the relatively higher costs of conducting HTAs, the most efficient approach might be a combination of both policies.

[IQWiG's methods for the cost-benefit assessment : Comparison with an international reference scenario]

Standardization of international health economic guidelines has been repeatedly requested. In this context, an international reference case was proposed, which constitutes an agreed approach for the key elements of health economic evaluation including study perspective, comparators, source of effectiveness data, role of modeling, main (economic) outcome, source of utilities, characterizing uncertainty. It is, however, questionable whether such a reference scenario can reasonably be applied across all health care systems. Our analysis pursues the question to which degree the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care's (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, IQWiG) "General methods for evaluating the relation between cost and benefit" comply with the key elements of the reference case. In case of divergences, they will be described and discussed in light of the German social legislation and in consideration of current scientific evidence. In conclusion, the analysis revealed that IQWiG complied with the reference case in almost all aspects. Differences were found only with respect to the choice of main (economic) outcome and the source of utilities. These differences seem justified and well explained in the context of the German social legislation as well as in view of the weaknesses of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) concept.

Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?

Systematic reviews of studies of effectiveness are the centrepiece of evidence-based medicine and policy making. Increasingly, systematic reviews of economic evaluations are also an expected input into much evidence-based policy making, with some health economists even calling for 'an economics approach to systematic review'. This paper questions the value of conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations to inform decision making in health care. It argues that the value of systematic reviews of economic evaluations is usually undermined by three things. Firstly, compared with effectiveness studies, there is a much wider range of factors that limit the generalisability of cost-effectiveness results, over time and between health systems and service settings, including the context-dependency of resource use and opportunity costs, and different decision contexts and budget constraints. Secondly, because economic evaluations are more explicitly intended to be decision-informing, the requirements for generalisability take primacy, and considerations of internal validity become more secondary. Thirdly, since one of the two main forms of economic evaluation - decision analytic modelling - is itself a well-developed method of evidence synthesis, in most cases the need for a comprehensive systematic review of previous economic evaluations of a particular health technology or policy choice is unwarranted. I conclude that apparent 'meta-analytic expectations' for clear and widely applicable cost-effectiveness conclusions from systematic reviews of economic evaluations are optimistic and generally futile. For more useful insights and knowledge from previous economic studies in evidence-based policy making, a more limited range of reasons for conducting systematic reviews of health economic studies is proposed.

Principles of pharmacoeconomics and their impact on strategic imperatives of pharmaceutical research and development

The importance of evidence-based health policy is widely acknowledged among health care professionals, patients and politicians. Health care resources available for medical procedures, including pharmaceuticals, are limited all over the world. Economic evaluations help to alleviate the burden of scarce resources by improving the allocative efficiency of health care financing. Reimbursement of new medicines is subject to their cost-effectiveness and affordability in more and more countries. There are three major approaches to calculate the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals. Economic analyses alongside pivotal clinical trials are often inconclusive due to the suboptimal collection of economic data and protocol-driven costs. The major limitation of observational naturalistic economic evaluations is the selection bias and that they can be conducted only after registration and reimbursement. Economic modelling is routinely used to predict the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals for reimbursement purposes. Accuracy of cost-effectiveness estimates depends on the quality of input variables; validity of surrogate end points; and appropriateness of modelling assumptions, including model structure, time horizon and sophistication of the model to differentiate clinically and economically meaningful outcomes. These economic evaluation methods are not mutually exclusive; in practice, economic analyses often combine data collection alongside clinical trials or observational studies with modelling. The need for pharmacoeconomic evidence has fundamentally changed the strategic imperatives of research and development (R&D). Therefore, professionals in pharmaceutical R&D have to be familiar with the principles of pharmacoeconomics, including the selection of health policy-relevant comparators, analytical techniques, measurement of health gain by quality-adjusted life-years and strategic pricing of pharmaceuticals.

[A proposed guideline for economic evaluation of health technologies]

Over the last few years, economic evaluation of health technologies has become a major tool used by European health policy decision-makers to create strategies for prioritizing the allocation of health resources and the approval of new technologies. Spain was a pioneer in proposing the standardization of methodology applicable to economic evaluation studies. However, because health policy decision-makers refused to support the initiative, the methodology was never put into practice. In the medium term, evidence of the economic value of new health technologies financed by the national health system will probably be increasingly required. At that time, stakeholders and decision-makers will have to agree upon a clear and concise set of rules on the technical and methodological issues that must be followed by economic evaluations of health technologies. Consequently, we have provided guidelines and recommendations for producing first-rate economic evaluations. The recommendations appear under seventeen headings or sections. In each case, the recommended requirements to be satisfied by an economic evaluation of health technologies are provided and each recommendation is followed by a commentary, providing a justification and comparing and contrasting the proposal with other available alternatives.

Can economic evaluation in telemedicine be trusted? A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Telemedicine has been advocated as an effective means to provide health care services over a distance. Systematic information on costs and consequences has been called for to support decision-making in this field. This paper provides a review of the quality, validity and generalisability of economic evaluations in telemedicine.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in all relevant databases was conducted and forms the basis for addressing these issues. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English in the period from 1990 to 2007 were analysed. The literature search identified 33 economic evaluations where both costs (resource use) and outcomes (non-resource consequences) were measured.

RESULTS

This review shows that economic evaluations in telemedicine are highly diverse in terms of both the study context and the methods applied. The articles covered several medical specialities ranging from cardiology and dermatology to psychiatry. The studies analysed telemedicine in home care, and in primary and secondary care settings using a variety of different technologies including videoconferencing, still-images and monitoring (store-and-forward telemedicine). Most studies used multiple outcome measures and analysed the effects using disaggregated cost-consequence frameworks. Objectives, study design, and choice of comparators were mostly well reported. The majority of the studies lacked information on perspective and costing method, few used general statistics and sensitivity analysis to assess validity, and even fewer used marginal analysis.

CONCLUSION

As this paper demonstrates, the majority of the economic evaluations reviewed were not in accordance with standard evaluation techniques. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for this and to address how economic evaluation in telemedicine best can take advantage of local constraints and at the same time produce valid and generalisable results.

Health technology assessment: a review of international activity and examples of approaches with computed tomographic colonography

The growth of health technology assessment (HTA) internationally is currently reflected in the growing membership of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Many national and regional HTA institutions emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, and more recently, HTA has emerged in newly industrialized countries and in European Union member states in transition. Health technology assessment activities are becoming an increasingly important part of health care culture, with the appearance of HTA units in hospitals and hospital departments. This article provides a brief overview of who conducts HTA internationally and looks at how HTA is conducted and how this information is used. To highlight the different structures, processes, and methods available, a portion of this article is dedicated to describing different approaches that have been observed with respect to the assessment of computed tomographic colonography in North America for population-based colorectal cancer screening.

Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report

ABSTRACT A growing number of jurisdictions now request economic data in support of their decision-making procedures for the pricing and/or reimbursement of health technologies. Because more jurisdictions request economic data, the burden on study sponsors and researchers increases. There are many reasons why the cost-effectiveness of health technologies might vary from place to place. Therefore, this report of an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force reviews what national guidelines for economic evaluation say about transferability, discusses which elements of data could potentially vary from place to place, and recommends good research practices for dealing with aspects of transferability, including strategies based on the analysis of individual patient data and based on decision-analytic modeling.

Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations (HEEs) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations. Nevertheless, while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods, they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs. HEEs, as context-specific tools, are not easily generalizable from setting to setting. Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries. Therefore, a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC (trans-regional) and to other LAC countries (intra-regional), respectively. We conducted a systematic review, searching the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Office of Health Economics Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED), LILACS (Latin America health bibliographic database) and NEVALAT (Latin American Network on HEE) to identify HEEs published between 1980 and 2004. We included individual patient- and model-based HEEs (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit and cost-consequences analyses) that involved at least one LAC country. Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using a checklist validated by regional and international experts. From 521 studies retrieved, 72 were full HEEs (39% randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 32% models, 17% non-randomized studies and 12% mixed trial-modeling approach). Over one-third of identified studies did not specifically report the type of HEE. Cost-effectiveness and cost-consequence analyses accounted for almost 80% of the studies. The three Latin American countries with the highest participation in HEE studies were Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. While we found relatively good standards of reporting the study's question, population, interventions, comparators and conclusions, the overall reporting was poor, and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident (i.e. absence of incremental analysis, of discounting long-term costs and effects). Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent. Of the 49 trial-based analyses, 43% were single centre, 33% multinational and 18% multicentre national. Main reporting problems included issues related to sample representativeness, data collection and data analysis. Of the 32 model-based studies (most commonly using epidemiological models), main problems included the inadequacy of search strategy, range selection for sensitivity analysis and theoretical justifications. There are a number of issues associated with the reporting and methodology used in multinational and local HEE studies relevant for LAC that preclude the assessment of their generalizability and potential transferability. Although the quality of reporting and methodology used in model-based HEEs was somewhat higher than those from trial-based HEEs, economic evaluation methodology was usually weak and less developed than the analysis of clinical data. Improving these aspects in LAC HEE studies is paramount to maximizing their potential benefits such as increasing the generalizability/transferability of their results.

Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a dynamic, rapidly evolving process, embracing different types of assessments that inform real-world decisions about the value (i.e., benefits, risks, and costs) of new and existing technologies. Historically, most HTA agencies have focused on producing high quality assessment reports that can be used by a range of decision makers. However, increasingly organizations are undertaking or commissioning HTAs to inform a particular resource allocation decision, such as listing a drug on a national or local formulary, defining the range of coverage under insurance plans, or issuing mandatory guidance on the use of health technologies in a particular healthcare system. A set of fifteen principles that can be used in assessing existing or establishing new HTA activities is proposed, providing examples from existing HTA programs. The principal focus is on those HTA activities that are linked to, or include, a particular resource allocation decision. In these HTAs, the consideration of both costs and benefits, in an economic evaluation, is critical. It is also important to consider the link between the HTA and the decision that will follow. The principles are organized into four sections: (i) “Structure” of HTA programs; (ii) “Methods” of HTA; (iii) “Processes for Conduct” of HTA; and (iv) “Use of HTAs in Decision Making.”

Self-measurement of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: a health economic assessment

BACKGROUND

The clinical role and the potential benefit of self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes are still under discussion. Even less information is available on the cost-effectiveness of performing SMBG by this patient group. The goal of this study was to establish cost-effectiveness ratios of performing SMBG by patients afflicted by this disease.

METHODS

We assessed the benefit and cost-effectiveness of SMBG in type 2 diabetes from a third-party payer perspective based on results of both a large epidemiologic cohort study reflecting the reality of care, and a Markov model calculation.

RESULTS

Analysis of cohort study data revealed that total costs cumulated over the observation period of 8 years were lower in the SMBG group than in the non-SMBG group according to savings of euro 1'714 [oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) only] and euro 13'815 (OAD + insulin) per patient. Several scenarios were considered in the model-based calculation. The cost-effectiveness ratio varied from euro 20'768/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD treated patients and from euro 59'057/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD + insulin treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that SMBG in type 2 diabetes offers an excellent opportunity to get a high investment-outcome ratio in the treatment of this pandemic disease.

'Lost in translation': accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data

Cost-effectiveness analysis has gained status over the last 15 years as an important tool for assisting resource allocation decisions in a budget-limited environment such as healthcare. Randomised (multicentre) multinational controlled trials are often the main vehicle for collecting primary patient-level information on resource use, cost and clinical effectiveness associated with alternative treatment strategies. However, trial-wide cost effectiveness results may not be directly applicable to any one of the countries that participate in a multinational trial, requiring some form of additional modelling to customise the results to the country of interest. This article proposes an algorithm to assist with the choice of the appropriate analytical strategy when facing the task of adapting the study results from one country to another. The algorithm considers different scenarios characterised by: (a) whether the country of interest participated in the trial; and (b) whether individual patient-level data (IPD) from the trial are available. The analytical options available range from the use of regression-based techniques to the application of decision-analytic models. Decision models are typically used when the evidence base is available exclusively in summary format whereas regression-based methods are used mainly when the country of interest actively recruited patients into the trial and there is access to IPD (or at least country-specific summary data). Whichever method is used to reflect between-country variability in cost-effectiveness data, it is important to be transparent regarding the assumptions made in the analysis and (where possible) assess their impact on the study results.