Novel externalities

Novel externalities are social activities for which the emerging cost (or benefit) of the spillover is unknown and must be discovered. Negative novel externalities have regained international salience following the COVID-19 pandemic. Such cases frequently are invoked as evidence of the limits of liberal political economy for dealing with public emergencies. Through a re-reading of classical political economy with the modern state's confrontation with infectious disease in mind, we defend the comparative efficacy of liberal democracy against authoritarian alternatives for coping with these social problems. Effective responses to novel externalities require producing and updating trustworthy public information and an independent scientific community to validate and interpret it. Those epistemic capacities are prevalent in liberal democratic regimes with multiple sources of political power, an independent civil society, and practices of academic freedom. Our analysis highlights the theoretical value of polycentrism and self-governance beyond their more familiar role, of increasing accountability and competition in the provision of local public goods, towards facilitating effective national policy.

Cost savings through continuous vital sign monitoring in the medical-surgical unit

ABSTRACTObjective- This study aimed to determine the potential cost-savings for implementing continuous vital sign monitoring in a hospital's medical-surgical units.Methods- A cost-savings analysis was designed to calculate potential cost-savings for an average-sized U.S. community hospital (153 total beds) over a one-year time horizon. Analysis parameters were extracted from national databases and previous studies that compared outcomes for patients receiving continuous vital sign monitoring (SpO₂, HR, and RR) or standard of care (intermittent vital sign measurements) in medical-surgical units based on a targeted literature review. Clinical parameters and associated costs served as analysis inputs. The analysis outputs were costs and potential cost-savings using a 50% and 100% adoption rate of continuous monitoring technologies across the medical-surgical unit.Results- Potential annual cost-savings for in-hospital medical-surgical stays were estimated at $3,414,709 (2022 USD) and $6,829,418 for a 50% and 100% adoption rate, respectively. The cost-savings for an adoption rate of 100% equated to a ∼14% reduction in the overall annual cost of medical-surgical unit stays for an average-sized hospital. The largest contribution to potential cost-savings came from patients that avoided serious adverse events that require transfer to the intensive care unit; this resulted in annual cost-savings from reduced average length of stay between $1,756,613 and $3,513,226 (50% and 100% adoption rate, respectively). Additional cost-savings can be attained from reductions in in-hospital cardiac arrest-associated hospitalizations and decreased rapid response team activation.Conclusions- Our findings demonstrate that there is the potential for cost-savings of over $6.8 million dollars per year in an average-sized US community hospital by improving patient outcomes through implementation of continuous monitoring technologies in medical-surgical units. Continuous vital sign monitoring technologies that increase patient mobility and facilitate recovery may further contribute to cost-savings and should be considered for economic analyses. Future research is needed to explore these health-related outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the United States

AIMS

Pembrolizumab, as monotherapy in first-line recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with a combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 and in combination with platinum and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the overall R/M HNSCC population, received US FDA approval based on the KEYNOTE-048 trial. Using public drug prices, from a US payer perspective, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each pembrolizumab regimen vs. cetuximab + platinum+5-FU (EXTREME regimen, trial comparator), cisplatin + docetaxel + cetuximab (TPEx regimen), cisplatin + paclitaxel, and platinum+5-FU.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model was used to project costs and outcomes over 20 years with 3% annual discounting. Progression-free and overall survival were modeled using long-term extrapolation of KEYNOTE-048 data and, for alternative comparators, data from a network meta-analysis was used. Time-on-treatment was derived from KEYNOTE-048 or approximated using network meta-analysis progression-free survival estimates. Costs included first-line and subsequent treatments, disease management, adverse events, and terminal care costs. Utilities were derived from the KEYNOTE-048 Euro-QoL five-dimension data and using a US algorithm.

RESULTS

In the CPS ≥1 R/M HNSCC population, pembrolizumab monotherapy was dominant vs. EXTREME and TPEx regimens, and cost-effective (at $100,000/QALY threshold) vs. platinum+5-FU ($86,827/QALY) and cisplatin + paclitaxel ($81,473/QALY). Pembrolizumab combination therapy in the overall R/M HNSCC population was dominant vs. TPEx regimen, and cost-effective vs. EXTREME regimen ($1769/QALY), platinum+5-FU ($81,989/QALY), and cisplatin + paclitaxel ($89,505/QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed a high cost-effectiveness probability for pembrolizumab at the $100,000/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with CPS ≥1, and pembrolizumab combination therapy in the overall R/M HNSCC population is cost-effective from the perspective of the US payers.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatments of advanced intermediate- or poor-risk renal-cell carcinoma: a number needed to treat analysis from the Brazilian private perspective

BACKGROUND

Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective.

METHODS

Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment.

RESULTS

Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS.

CONCLUSION

At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.

Number needed to treat analysis applied to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

AIMS

Considering that healthcare systems' financial resources are limited, we aimed to analyze the number needed to treat (NNT) and cost of preventing an event (COPE) related to drug use from Supplementary Health System (SSS) perspective.

METHODS

Data from KEYNOTE-189 (NCT02578680) were considered, comparing pembrolizumab + chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone. A cost-per-responder model was developed considering the 24- and 12-month time horizons for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) endpoints, respectively. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) and restricted mean time-on-treatment (ToT) were determined for NNT and COPE calculation. Costs were reported in American dollars (USD) and reflect those related to drug use. The analysis was conducted for the total indicated population, and an exploratory assessment was carried out for subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels.

RESULTS

Considering PFS data, the overall population NNT_RMST to prevent a progression event with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was 2.63 (95%CI: 1.90-4.02) with an estimated COPE of 251,038 USD (95%CI: 181,359-383,717) in the 12-months follow-up. Regarding OS endpoint, overall NNT_RMST and COPE were 3.18 (95%CI: 2.20-5.31) and 414,163 (95%CI: 286,528-691,573) USD respectively, in the 24 months follow-up. The PFS NNT was lower with higher levels of PD-L1 expression (1.71, 3.22 and 5.53 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively), while there was no such apparent relationship for OS (3.23, 4.37 and 2.80 for PD-L1 ≥ 50%, PD-L1 1%-49%, and PD-L1 < 1% groups, respectively). The 95%CIs overlapped for PFS and OS NNT across the PD-L1 subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The magnitude of benefit of the pembrolizumab combination used for first-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment to improve survival compared to chemotherapy alone was confirmed. The exploratory analysis from the SSS perspective suggests no differences among the PDL-1 subgroups in terms of clinical benefit or economic impact.

Cost utility analysis of continuous and intermittent versus intermittent vital signs monitoring in patients admitted to surgical wards

Background: Complications after surgical procedures are common and can lead to a prolonged hospital stay, increased rates of postoperative hospital readmission, and increased mortality. Monitoring vital signs is an effective way to identify patients who are experiencing a deterioration in health. SensiumVitals is wireless system that includes a lightweight, digital patch that monitors vital signs at two minute intervals, and has shown promise in the early identification of patients at high risk of deterioration.Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of continuous monitoring of vital signs with SensiumVitals in addition to intermittent monitoring compared to the usual care of patients admitted to surgical wards.Methods: A de novo decision analytic model, based on current treatment pathways, was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes. Results from randomised clinical trials and national standard sources were used to inform the model. Costs were estimated from the NHS and PSS perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore uncertainty surrounding input parameters.Results: Over a 30-day time horizon, intermittent monitoring in addition to continuous monitoring of vital signs with SensiumVitals was less costly than intermittent vital signs monitoring alone. The total cost per patient was £6,329 versus £5,863 for the comparator and intervention groups respectively and the total effectiveness per patient was 0.057 QALYs in each group. Results from the PSA showed that use of SensiumVitals in addition to intermittent monitoring has 73% probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold and 73% probability of being cost-saving compared to the comparator. Cost savings were driven by reduced costs of hospital readmissions and length of stays in hospital.Conclusions: Use of SensiumVitals as a postoperative intervention for patients on surgical wards is a cost-saving and cost-effective strategy, yielding improvements in recovery with decreased health resource use.Key Points for Decision MakersSensiumVitals has the potential to reduce the length of postoperative hospital stay, readmission rates, and associated costs in postoperative patients.In this study, SensiumVitals has been found to be a cost-saving (dominant) and cost-effective (dominant) intervention for monitoring the vital signs of surgical patients postoperatively.

Decrease in American birth rates makes it imperative for the United States to implement state mandated fertility coverage

In recent years, the prevalence of infertility has increased due to delayed childbearing and an increase in the rate of male infertility. Given the high cost of fertility treatment, this option is not valid for families with a low income, and those who can afford it usually choose to have multiple embryo transfer, which has led to an increase in multiple birth rates and an increase in the cost of perinatal care. Due to the expected increase in infertility and decrease in the national live birth rate, the US should set a plan to fund infertility treatment and lead a policy for single embryo transfer. This will offset the decrease in the national birth rates and decrease expenditure on perinatal and neonatal complications resulting from multiple births.