Possible Impact of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) on Decision Making for Cancer Screening in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review

Cost-effectiveness of internet-supported cognitive behavioral therapy for university students with anxiety symptoms: A Markov-model analysis

Background and aim

High prevalence of anxiety symptoms has been reported globally in the university students. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the recognized treatment for anxiety and is traditionally conducted face-to-face (f-CBT). The efficacy of internet-based CBT (i-CBT) for anxiety has been extensively studied, yet evidence on its cost-effectiveness is scarce. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of guided low-intensity i-CBT for university students with mild anxiety symptoms from the societal perspective of Hong Kong.

Methods

A 5-year Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of guided i-CBT and f-CBT in a hypothetical cohort of university students with mild anxiety symptoms. Model inputs of cost and healthcare resources associated with anxiety were retrospectively collected from a cohort of university students with anxiety symptoms. Clinical and utility model inputs were retrieved from published literature. Model outcome measures were anxiety-related total cost (including direct medical and indirect costs) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of base-case results.

Results

In base-case analysis, i-CBT gained higher QALYs (2.9956 versus 2.9917) at lower total cost (US$6,101 versus US$6,246) than f-CBT. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the QALY gained by i-CBT was sensitive to the relative patient acceptance and adherence to CBT. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, i-CBT was cost-effective in 90.9% of the time at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 138,210 per QALY (3× GDP per capita in Hong Kong). The probability of i-CBT to be cost-effective was 99.9% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of zero.

Conclusions

Guided i-CBT appears to be cost-saving and effective for management of university students with mild symptoms of anxiety from the societal perspective of Hong Kong. The cost-effectiveness of i-CBT is highly subject to the individual acceptance and adherence of CBT delivered by the internet platform.

Abiraterone vs. docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A microsimulation model

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to determine whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone acetate (AA) or ADT with docetaxel chemotherapy (DC) resulted in improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and the cost effectiveness of the preferred strategy using decision analytic techniques.

METHODS

A microsimulation model with a lifetime time horizon was constructed. Our primary outcome was QALYs. Secondary outcomes included cost, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), unadjusted overall survival (OS), rates of second- and third-line therapy, and adverse events. A systematic literature review was used to generate probabilities and utilities to populate the model. The base case was a 65-year-old patient with de novo mCSPC.

RESULTS

A total of 100 000 microsimulations were generated. Initial AA resulted in a gain of 0.45 QALYs compared to DC (3.36 vs. 2.91 QALYs) with an ICER of $276 251.82 per QALY gained with initial AA therapy. Median crude OS was 51 months with AA and 48 months with DC. Overall, 46.6% and 42.6% of patients received second-line therapy and 8.7% and 7.9% patients received third-line therapy in the AA and DC groups, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced in 17.6% of patients receiving initial AA and 22.3% of patients receiving initial DC.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ADT with AA results in a gain in QALYs and crude OS compared to DC, AA therapy is not a cost-effective treatment strategy to apply uniformly to all patients. The availability of AA as a generic medication may help to close this gap. The ultimate choice should be based on patient and tumor factors.

Towards a Transparent, Credible, Evidence-Based Decision-Making Process of New Drug Listing on the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary: Challenges and Suggestions

The aim of this article is to describe the process, evaluation criteria, and possible outcomes of decision-making for new drugs listed in the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary in comparison to the health technology assessment (HTA) policy overseas. Details of decision-making processes including the new drug listing submission, Drug Advisory Committee (DAC) meeting, and procedures prior to and following the meeting, were extracted from the official Hong Kong Hospital Authority drug formulary management website and manual. Publicly-available information related to the new drug decision-making process for five HTA agencies [the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC), the Australia Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC)] were reviewed and retrieved from official documents from public domains. The DAC is in charge of systemically and critically appraising new drugs before they are listed on the formulary, reviewing submitted applications, and making the decision to list the drug based on scientific evidence to which safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness are the primary considerations. When compared with other HTA agencies, transparency of the decision-making process of the DAC, the relevance of clinical and health economic evidence, and the lack of health economic and methodological input of submissions are the major challenges to the new-drug listing policy in Hong Kong. Despite these challenges, this review provides suggestions for the establishment of a more transparent, credible, and evidence-based decision-making process in the Hong Kong Hospital Authority Drug Formulary. Proposals for improvement in the listing of new drugs in the formulary should be a priority of healthcare reforms.

Traditional growing rod versus magnetically controlled growing rod for treatment of early onset scoliosis: Cost analysis from implantation till skeletal maturity

PURPOSE

To compare the yearly cost involved per patient in the use of magnetically controlled growing rod (MCGR) and traditional growing rods (TGRs) in the treatment of early onset scoliosis (EOS) and to assess the overall cost burden of MCGR with reference to patient and health-care infrastructure.

METHODS

For a hypothetical case of a 5-year-old girl with a diagnosis of EOS, a decision-tree model using TreeAge Software was developed to simulate annual health state transitions and compare the 8-year accumulative direct, indirect, and total cost among the four groups: (1) dual MCGRs with exchange every 2 years, (2) dual MCGRs with exchange every 3 years, (3) TGR with surgical distraction every year, and (4) TGR with surgical distraction every 6 months. Base-case values and ranges of clinical parameters reflecting complication rate after each type of surgical distraction were determined from a review of literature and expert opinion. Government gazette and expert opinion provided cost estimation of growing rods, surgeries, surgical complications, and routine follow-up. Microsimulation of 1000 individuals was conducted to test the variation in total direct costs (in 2016 Hong Kong dollars (HKD)) between individuals, and estimated the standard deviations of total direct costs for each group.

RESULTS

Over the projected treatment period, indirect costs incurred by patients and family were higher for the MCGR as compared to the TGR. However, the total costs incurred by MCGR groups (group 1: HKD164k; group 2: HKD138k) were lower than those incurred by TGR groups (group 3: HKD191k; group 4: HKD290k). Although the accumulative costs of three groups (TGR with distraction every year and MCGR replacing every 2 and 3 years) were approaching each other in the first 2 years after initial implantation, at year 3 the accumulative cost of MCGR exchange every 2 years was HKD36k more than the yearly TGR surgery due to the cost of implant exchange. The cost incurred by both the MCGR groups was less than that incurred by the TGR groups from year 4 to skeletal maturity.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of dual MCGRs, regardless of its 2- or 3-year exchange, was only cost saving and less expensive than the dual TGRs for EOS treatment from the fourth year of continuous treatment. Despite higher patient-related costs during MCGR treatment, it is important to consider the reduced risks and mental burden suffered by these children during repeat surgeries. With improved knowledge of the costs associated with long-term MCGR use, better constructed cost-effectiveness studies can be performed in the future.