Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

The use of ipratropium bromide for treating moderate to severe asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients in an emergency setting: A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Although the efficacy of the addition of ipratropium bromide (IB) to short-acting β2-agonists (SABAs) for treating children with moderate to severe asthma exacerbations has been demonstrated, evidence of its cost-effectiveness is scarce. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with a combination of SABAs and IB compared with SABAs alone for the treatment of children with moderate to severe asthma exacerbations.

METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the study, a decision-analysis model was adapted. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was avoidance of hospital admission.

RESULTS

In children with moderate to severe asthma exacerbations, the base-case analysis showed that compared to SABAs alone, treatment with a combination of SABAs and IB was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$126.24 vs. US$170.69 mean cost per patient) and a higher probability of hospital admission avoided (0.7999 vs. 0.7100), thus leading to dominance. For children with severe asthma exacerbations, these values were US$132.99 versus US$170.69 and 0.7883 versus 0.7100, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, when compared to therapy with SABAs alone, therapy with a combination of SABAs and IB for treating pediatric patients with moderate to severe asthma exacerbations involves a lower probability of hospital admission at lower treatment costs.

Challenges in synthesising cost-effectiveness estimates

Economic evaluations help decision-makers faced with tough decisions on how to allocate resources. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations are useful as they allow readers to assess whether interventions have been demonstrated to be cost effective, the uncertainty in the evidence base, and key limitations or gaps in the evidence base. The synthesis of systematic reviews of economic evaluations commonly takes a narrative approach whereas a meta-analysis is common step for reviews of clinical evidence (e.g. effectiveness or adverse event outcomes). As they are common objectives in other reviews, readers may query why a synthesis has not been attempted for economic outcomes. However, a meta-analysis of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, or health benefits (including quality-adjusted life years) is fraught with issues largely due to heterogeneity across study designs and methods and further practical challenges. Therefore, meta-analysis is rarely feasible or robust. This commentary outlines these issues, supported by examples from the literature, to support researchers and reviewers considering systematic review of economic evidence.