Informal Care Costs According to Age and Proximity to Death to Support Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Value is Gendered: The Need for Sex and Gender Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations play a crucial role in health resource allocation by assessing the costs and effects of various interventions. However, existing methodologies often overlook significant differences related to sex and gender, leading to a 'blind spot' in understanding patient heterogeneity. This paper highlights how biological and social factors influence costs and health outcomes differently for women, emphasising the need for a more explicit consideration of these differences in economic evaluations to ensure efficient and equitable resource allocation. The paper is structured to first outline how sex and gender factors impact costs and outcomes. It then identifies biases in current economic evaluation methods and practices, using real-world examples to illustrate the implications of these biases on policymaking and health equity. Notably, we argue that neglecting gender considerations can lead to inefficiencies and inequities in healthcare resource distribution. Key areas of gender bias include the estimation of productivity losses, quality of life variations and the secondary household effects of interventions. The analysis reveals that women often face higher healthcare costs and experience different health outcomes due to systemic biases in treatment and care. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for analysts, decision makers and research funders, advocating for the integration of sex and gender-responsive methodologies in health economic evaluations. Ultimately, this work calls for a paradigm shift in health economics to better reflect the complexities of sex and gender and improve health outcomes for all.

COMPAR-EU Recommendations on Self-Management Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Self-management interventions (SMIs) offer a promising approach to actively engage patients in the management of their chronic diseases. Within the scope of the COMPAR-EU project, our goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilisation and implementation of SMIs in the care of adult individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A multidisciplinary panel of experts, utilising a core outcome set (COS), identified critical outcomes and established effect thresholds for each outcome. The panel formulated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, a transparent and rigorous framework for developing and presenting the best available evidence for the formulation of recommendations. All recommendations are based on systematic reviews (SR) of the effects and of values and preferences, a contextual analysis, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The COMPAR-EU panel is in favour of using SMIs rather than usual care (UC) alone (conditional, very low certainty of the evidence). Furthermore, the panel specifically is in favour of using ten selected SMIs, rather than UC alone (conditional, low certainty of the evidence), mostly encompassing education, self-monitoring, and behavioural techniques. The panel acknowledges that, for most SMIs, moderate resource requirements exist, and cost-effectiveness analyses do not distinctly favour either the SMI or UC. Additionally, it recognises that SMIs are likely to enhance equity, deeming them acceptable and feasible for implementation.

Cost-effectiveness of alternative NTRK testing strategies in cancer patients followed by histology-independent therapy with entrectinib: an analysis of three European countries

Aim: To explore variations in the cost-effectiveness of entrectinib across different testing strategies and settings. Methods: Four testing strategies where adult cancer patients received entrectinib if they tested positive for NTRK gene fusions compared with 'no testing' and standard of care (SoC) for all patients were evaluated. Results: Immunohistochemistry for all patients followed by RNA-based next-generation sequencing after a positive result was the optimal strategy in all included countries. However, the incremental net monetary benefit compared with SoC was negative in all countries, ranging between international euros (int€) -206 and -404. In a subgroup analysis with only NTRK-positive patients, the incremental net monetary benefit was int€ 8405 in England, int€ -53,088 in Hungary and int€ 54,372 in The Netherlands. Conclusion: Using the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by national guidelines, none of the testing strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing. The implementation of entrectinib is unlikely to become cost-effective in Hungary, due to the large cost difference between the entrectinib and SoC arms, while there might be more potential in England and The Netherlands.