Showing papers on "Cost effectiveness published in 2022"

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies: A systematic review.

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death worldwide and the use of CRC screening tests can reduce the incidence and mortality of the disease by early detection. This study aims to review cost-effectiveness strategies in different ages and countries, systematically. METHODS We searched ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase for related studies between 2010 and 2020. Articles that reported costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Year or Life Year Gain and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios to compare the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in the average-risk population were included in our study. RESULTS The search strategies identified 426 records and finally 48 articles were included in the systematic review based on included and excluded criteria. We identified seven strategies for CRC screening. Most of the strategies were performed in aged 50-75. These studies were reported by cost per Quality-Adjusted life year (QALY)/Life Year Gain (LYG) based on methods and perspectives and the ICER of comparison of two-by-two strategies. CONCLUSION Most of the CRC screening strategies were cost-effective, but there was big heterogeneity between the cost-effectiveness analysis of CRC screening strategies because of different screening methods, perspectives and screening populations. So, it is important to consider this heterogeneity to compare the economic evaluation studies in this field.

Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement in Public Health

Abstract: Patient-reported outcomes are recognized as essential for the evaluation of medical and public health interventions. Over the last 50 years, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research has grown exponentially from 0 to more than 17,000 papers published annually. We provide an overview of generic HRQoL measures used widely in epidemiological studies, health services research, population studies, and randomized clinical trials [e.g., Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29]. In addition, we review methods used for economic analysis and calculation of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). These include the EQ-5D, the Health Utilities Index (HUI), the self-administered Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB-SA), and the Health and Activities Limitation Index (HALex). Furthermore, we consider hybrid measures such as the SF-6D and the PROMIS-Preference (PROPr). The plethora of HRQoL measures has impeded cumulative science because incomparable measures have been used in different studies. Linking among different measures and consensus on standard HRQoL measurement should now be prioritized. In addition, enabling widespread access to common measures is necessary to accelerate future progress.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value-Based Pricing of Aducanumab for Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease

Abstract: Aducanumab was granted accelerated approval with a conflicting evidence base, near-unanimous Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee vote to reject approval, and a widely criticized launch price of $56,000 per year. The objective of this analysis was to estimate its cost-effectiveness.We developed a Markov model to compare aducanumab in addition to supportive care to supportive care alone over a lifetime horizon. Results were presented from both the health system and modified societal perspective. The model tracked the severity of disease and the care setting. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and a threshold analysis was conducted to estimate at what price aducanumab would meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.Using estimates of effectiveness based on pooling of data from both pivotal trials, patients treated with aducanumab spent 4 more months in earlier stages of Alzheimer disease. Over the lifetime time horizon, treating a patient with aducanumab results in 0.154 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient and 0.201 equal value of life-years gained (evLYG) per patient from the health care system perspective, with additional costs of approximately $204,000 per patient. The incremental outcomes were similar for the modified societal perspective. At the launch price of $56,000 per year, the cost-effectiveness ranged from $1.02 million per evLYG to $1.33 million per QALY gained from the health care system perspective and from $938,000 per evLYG to $1.27 million per QALY gained in the modified societal perspective. The annual price to meet commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds ranged from $2,950 to $8,360, which represents a discount of 85%-95% off from the annual launch price set by the manufacturer. Using estimates of effectiveness based only on the trial that suggested a benefit, the mean incremental cost was greater than $400,000 per QALY gained.Patients treated with aducanumab received minimal improvements in health outcomes at considerable cost. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that far exceeded commonly used value thresholds, even under optimistic treatment effectiveness assumptions. These findings are subject to the substantial uncertainty regarding whether aducanumab provides any true net health benefit, but evidence available currently suggests that an annual price of aducanumab of $56,000 is not in reasonable alignment with its clinical benefits.

Cost-Effectiveness of Operating on Traumatic Spinal Injuries in Low-Middle Income Countries: A Preliminary Report From a Major East African Referral Center:

Abstract: Study Design:Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis.Objectives:While the incidence of traumatic spine injury (TSI) is high in low-middle income countries (LMICs), surgery is rarely possible due ...

Cost-effectiveness of digital therapeutics for essential hypertension

Abstract: Abstract Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular and other diseases. Lifestyle modification is a significant component of nonpharmacological treatments for hypertension. We previously reported the clinical efficacy of digital therapeutics (DTx) in the HERB-DH1 trial. However, there is still a lack of cost-effectiveness assessments evaluating the impact of prescription DTx. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of using prescription DTx in treating hypertension. We developed a monthly cycle Markov model and conducted Monte Carlo simulations using the HERB-DH1 trial data to investigate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the cost of DTx for hypertension plus guideline-based lifestyle modification consultation treatment as usual (TAU), comparing DTx + TAU and TAU-only groups with a lifetime horizon. The model inputs were obtained from the HERB-DH1 trial, published or publicly available data, and expert assumptions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was used as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) using the Monte Carlo simulation with two million sets. The DTx + TAU strategy produced 18.778 QALYs and was associated with ¥3,924,075 ($34,122) expected costs, compared with 18.686 QALYs and ¥3,813,358 ($33,160) generated by the TAU-only strategy over a lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of ¥1,199,880 ($10,434)/QALY gained for DTx + TAU. The monthly cost and attrition rate of DTx for hypertension have a significant impact on ICERs. In the PSA, the probability of the DTx arm being a cost-effective option was 87.8% at a threshold value of ¥5 million ($43,478)/QALY gained. In conclusion, the DTx + TAU strategy was more cost-effective than the TAU-only strategy.

OUP accepted manuscript

Abstract: Abstract Background Multimorbidity is a major public health concern. Complex interventions, incorporating individualized care plans, may be appropriate for patients with multimorbidity given their individualized and variable needs. There is a dearth of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of complex multimorbidity interventions. Objective This study examines the cost-effectiveness of a 6-week occupational therapy-led self-management support programme (OPTIMAL) for adults with multimorbidity. Methods Economic evaluation, from a healthcare perspective, was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 149 adults with multimorbidity. Intervention was the OPTIMAL programme with a comparison of usual primary care. Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and expected cost-effectiveness were estimated at 6 months and uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results The intervention was associated with a mean improvement in QALYs gained of 0.031 per patient (P-value: 0.063; 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: −0.002 to 0.063) and a mean reduction in total costs of €2,548 (P-value: 0.114; 95% CIs: −5,606 to 509) per patient. At cost-effectiveness threshold values of €20,000 and €45,000 per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was estimated to be 0.951 and 0.958, respectively. The results remained consistent across all subgroups examined. Conclusions This study adds to the limited evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of complex interventions for multimorbidity, and highlights the potential for the OPTIMAL programme to be cost-effective. Further studies are warranted to explore the clinical and cost-effectiveness of complex interventions for the multimorbidity patient population, and for subgroups within it. Trial registration Trial number: ISRCTN67235963.

Epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccination in Kenya

Abstract: Background A few studies have assessed the epidemiological impact and the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in settings where most of the population had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of COVID-19 vaccine in Kenya from a societal perspective over a 1.5-year time frame. An age-structured transmission model assumed at least 80% of the population to have prior natural immunity when an immune escape variant was introduced. We examine the effect of slow (18 months) or rapid (6 months) vaccine roll-out with vaccine coverage of 30%, 50% or 70% of the adult (>18 years) population prioritising roll-out in those over 50-years (80% uptake in all scenarios). Cost data were obtained from primary analyses. We assumed vaccine procurement at US$7 per dose and vaccine delivery costs of US$3.90–US$6.11 per dose. The cost-effectiveness threshold was US$919.11. Findings Slow roll-out at 30% coverage largely targets those over 50 years and resulted in 54% fewer deaths (8132 (7914–8373)) than no vaccination and was cost saving (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER=US$−1343 (US$−1345 to US$−1341) per disability-adjusted life-year, DALY averted). Increasing coverage to 50% and 70%, further reduced deaths by 12% (810 (757–872) and 5% (282 (251–317) but was not cost-effective, using Kenya’s cost-effectiveness threshold (US$919.11). Rapid roll-out with 30% coverage averted 63% more deaths and was more cost-saving (ICER=US$−1607 (US$−1609 to US$−1604) per DALY averted) compared with slow roll-out at the same coverage level, but 50% and 70% coverage scenarios were not cost-effective. Interpretation With prior exposure partially protecting much of the Kenyan population, vaccination of young adults may no longer be cost-effective.

Lessons from past pandemics: a systematic review of evidence-based, cost-effective interventions to suppress COVID-19

Abstract: In an unparalleled global response, during the COVID-19 pandemic, 90 countries asked 3.9 billion people to stay home. Yet other countries avoided lockdowns and focused on other strategies, like contact tracing. How effective and cost-effective are these strategies? We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence on past pandemic controls, with a focus on cost-effectiveness.Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2020) and EMBASE (1974 to April 17, 2020) were searched using a range of terms related to pandemic control. Articles reporting on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of at least one intervention were included.We found 1653 papers; 62 were included. The effectiveness of hand-washing and face masks was supported by randomized trials. These measures were highly cost-effective. For other interventions, only observational and modelling studies were found. They suggested that (1) the most cost-effective interventions are swift contact tracing and case isolation, surveillance networks, protective equipment for healthcare workers, and early vaccination (when available); (2) home quarantines and stockpiling antivirals are less cost-effective; (3) social distancing measures like workplace and school closures are effective but costly, making them the least cost-effective options; (4) combinations are more cost-effective than single interventions; and (5) interventions are more cost-effective when adopted early. For 2009 H1N1 influenza, contact tracing was estimated to be 4363 times more cost-effective than school closure ($2260 vs. $9,860,000 per death prevented).For COVID-19, a cautious interpretation suggests that (1) workplace and school closures are effective but costly, especially when adopted late, and (2) scaling up as early as possible a combination of interventions that includes hand-washing, face masks, ample protective equipment for healthcare workers, and swift contact tracing and case isolation is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.

Cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness evaluation of a practice change intervention to increase routine provision of antenatal care addressing maternal alcohol consumption

Abstract: Implementation of antenatal clinical guideline recommendations for addressing maternal alcohol consumption is sub-optimal. There is a complete absence of evidence of the cost and cost-effectiveness of delivering practice change interventions addressing maternal alcohol consumption amongst women accessing maternity services. The study sought to determine the cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness of developing and delivering a multi-strategy practice change intervention in three sectors of a health district in New South Wales, Australia.The trial-based economic analyses compared the costs and outcomes of the intervention to usual care over the 35-month period of the stepped-wedge trial. A health service provider perspective was selected to focus on the cost of delivering the practice change intervention, rather than the cost of delivering antenatal care itself. All costs are reported in Australian dollars ($AUD, 2019). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of variation in intervention effect and costs.The total cost of delivering the practice change intervention across all three sectors was $367,646, of which $40,871 (11%) were development costs and $326,774 (89%) were delivery costs. Labour costs comprised 70% of the total intervention delivery cost. A single practice change strategy, 'educational meetings and educational materials' contributed 65% of the delivery cost. Based on the trial's primary efficacy outcome, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $32,570 (95% CI: $32,566-$36,340) per percent increase in receipt of guideline recommended care. Based on the number of women attending the maternity services during the trial period, the average incremental cost per woman who received all guideline elements was $591 (Range: $329 - $940) . The average cost of the intervention per eligible clinician was $993 (Range: $640-$1928).The intervention was more effective than usual care, at an increased cost. Healthcare funders' willingness to pay for this incremental effect is unknown. However, the strategic investment in systems change is expected to improve the efficiency of the practice change intervention over time. Given the positive trial findings, further research and monitoring is required to assess the sustainability of intervention effectiveness and whether economies of scale, or reduced costs of intervention delivery can be achieved without impact on outcomes.The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017).

Cost effectiveness of population screening versus no screening for cardiovascular​ disease: the Danish Cardiovascular Screening trial (DANCAVAS).

Abstract: Abstract Aims A recent trial has shown that screening of men for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may reduce all-cause mortality. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of such screening vs. no screening from the perspective of European healthcare systems. Methods and results Randomized controlled trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluation with a mean 5.7 years of follow-up. Screening was based on low-dose computed tomography to detect coronary artery calcification and aortic/iliac aneurysms, limb blood pressure measurement to detect peripheral artery disease and hypertension, telemetric assessment of the heart rhythm to detect atrial fibrillation, and measurements of the cholesterol and HgbA1c levels. Censoring-adjusted incremental costs, life years (LY), and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) were estimated and used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The incremental cost of screening for the entire health care sector was €207 [95% confidence interval (CI) −24; 438, P = 0.078] per invitee for which gains of 0.019 LY (95% CI −0.007; 0.045, P = 0.145) and 0.023 QALY (95% CI −0.001; 0.046, P = 0.051) were achieved. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were of €10 812 per LY and €9075 per QALY, which would be cost effective at probabilities of 0.73 and 0.83 for a willingness to pay of €20 000. Assessment of population heterogeneity showed that cost effectiveness could be more attractive for younger men without CVD at baseline. Conclusions Comprehensive screening for CVD is overall cost effective at conventional thresholds for willingness to pay and also competitive to the cost effectiveness of common cancer screening programmes. The screening target group, however, needs to be settled.

Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening.

Abstract: Importance Artificial intelligence (AI)-based retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening may improve ROP care, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. Objective To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of autonomous and assistive AI-based ROP screening compared with telemedicine and ophthalmoscopic screening over a range of estimated probabilities, costs, and outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants A cost-effectiveness analysis of AI ROP screening compared with ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine via economic modeling was conducted. Decision trees created and analyzed modeled outcomes and costs of 4 possible ROP screening strategies: ophthalmoscopy, telemedicine, assistive AI with telemedicine review, and autonomous AI with only positive screen results reviewed. A theoretical cohort of infants requiring ROP screening in the United States each year was analyzed. Main Outcomes and Measures Screening and treatment costs were based on Current Procedural Terminology codes and included estimated opportunity costs for physicians. Outcomes were based on the Early Treatment of ROP study, defined as timely treatment, late treatment, or correctly untreated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed comparing AI strategies to telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy to evaluate the cost-effectiveness across a range of assumptions. In a secondary analysis, the modeling was repeated and assumed a higher sensitivity for detection of severe ROP using AI compared with ophthalmoscopy. Results This theoretical cohort included 52 000 infants born 30 weeks' gestation or earlier or weighed 1500 g or less at birth. Autonomous AI was as effective and less costly than any other screening strategy. AI-based ROP screening was cost-effective up to $7 for assistive and $34 for autonomous screening compared with telemedicine and $64 and $91 compared with ophthalmoscopy in the primary analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, autonomous AI screening was more than 60% likely to be cost-effective at all willingness-to-pay levels vs other modalities. In a second simulated cohort with 99% sensitivity for AI, the number of late treatments for ROP decreased from 265 when ROP screening was performed with ophthalmoscopy to 40 using autonomous AI. Conclusions and Relevance AI-based screening for ROP may be more cost-effective than telemedicine and ophthalmoscopy, depending on the added cost of AI and the relative performance of AI vs human examiners detecting severe ROP. As AI-based screening for ROP is commercialized, care must be given to appropriately price the technology to ensure its benefits are fully realized.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A CAPTAIN-1st and JUPITER-02 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract: This study was aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the recently approved first-line treatments, toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine plus cisplatin2 (GP) and GP alone for patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma3 (RM-NPC) from the Chinese payers' perspective.We established a Markov model to estimate the cost and effectiveness of currently first-line therapies for RM-NPC. Survival data were derived from the CAPTAIN-1st and JUPITER-02 trials. Direct medical costs and utilities were collected from the published literature and standard fee database. Main outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-year4 (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay5 (WTP) of $34 066/QALY. The robustness of the model was assessed by performing one-way and probability sensitivity analyses.Compared with the GP chemotherapy, toripalimab or camrelizumab plus GP chemotherapy as first-line therapy for RM-NPC provided an incremental cost of $6 026 and $43 138 with additional 0.90 QALYs and 0.78 QALYs, respectively, resulting in an ICER of 6 696 $/QALY and 55 305 $/QALY. In the pairwise comparison between the two immunotherapy-related groups, toripalimab plus GP was the dominant strategy with lower costs and higher efficiency than the camrelizumab plus GP group.In our analysis, compared with GP chemotherapy alone, toripalimab plus GP was more cost-effective, while camrelizumab plus GP chemotherapy was not cost-effective. In the pairwise comparison between the two immunotherapy-related groups, toripalimab plus GP would be more cost-effective than camrelizumab plus GP chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in India: an economic modelling study

Abstract: India faces a high burden of diabetes and hypertension. Currently, there is a dearth of economic evidence about screening programmes, affected age groups, and frequency of screening for these diseases in Indian settings. We assessed the cost effectiveness of population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension compared with current practice in India for different scenarios, according to type of screening test, population age group, and pattern of health-care use.We used a hybrid decision model (decision tree and Markov model) to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences from a societal perspective. A meta-analysis was done to assess the effectiveness of population-based screening. Primary data were collected from two Indian states (Haryana and Tamil Nadu) to assess the cost of screening. The data from the National Health System Cost Database and the Costing of Health Services in India study were used to determine the health system cost of diagnostic tests and cost of treating diabetes or hypertension and their complications. A total of 962 patients were recruited to assess out-of-pocket expenditure and quality of life. Parameter uncertainty was evaluated using univariate and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, we estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with alternative scenarios of scaling up primary health care through a health and wellness centre programme for the treatment of diabetes and hypertension.The incremental cost per QALY gained across various strategies for population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension ranged from US$0·02 million to $0·03 million. At the current pattern of health services use, none of the screening strategies of annual screening, screening every 3 years, and screening every 5 years was cost-effective at a threshold of 1-time per capita gross domestic product in India. In the scenario in which health and wellness centres provided primary care to 20% of patients who were newly diagnosed with uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension, screening the group aged between 30 and 65 years every 5 years or 3 years for either diabetes, hypertension, or a comorbid state (both diabetes and hypertension) became cost-effective. If the share of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed uncomplicated diabetes or hypertension at health and wellness centres increases to 70%, from the existing 4% at subcentres and primary health centres, annual population-based screening becomes a cost saving strategy.Population-based screening for diabetes and hypertension in India could potentially reduce time to diagnosis and treatment and be cost-effective if it is linked to comprehensive primary health care through health and wellness centres for provision of treatment to patients who screen positive.Department of Health Research, Government of India.