Review: A Practical Guide to Understanding Cost-effectiveness Analyses

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of regional disparities in China

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness of combining camrelizumab with rivoceranib versus sorafenib as initial treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) across different developmental regions in China.

Methods

Utilizing TreeAge Pro and data from the phase III randomized CARES-310 clinical trial, a model based on Markov state transitions was developed. Health state utility values were derived from the CARES-310 trial, and direct medical costs were obtained from relevant literature and local pricing data. The primary outcome measured was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained per person. The ICERs were compared against the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of different regions in China, including low-income ($16,426.80), medium-income ($34,319.01), and high-income regions ($81,036.63). Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness and reliability of the model under various assumptions. A tornado diagram was used to illustrate the impact of parameter variations on the model's cost-effectiveness.

Results

For base case analysis, QALYs per person for the cohort receiving sorafenib were 0.91, with a corresponding cost of $8,860.97. For the cohort receiving camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, the QALYs per person were 1.71, with a corresponding cost of $16,190.72. The camrelizumab plus rivoceranib treatment group exhibited an increase of 0.80 QALYs and an additional expenditure of $7,329.75. The calculated ICER was $9,150.75 per QALY, which is below the WTP thresholds for all regions in China. The camrelizumab plus rivoceranib regimen is regarded as highly cost-effective in medium-income areas of China, with a probability of 99.9%. In high-income regions, the probability reaches 100.0%. Even in low-income regions, this regimen is considered 95.6% cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis further verified that these findings were robust across various assumptions.

Conclusion

The combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib as a treatment strategy not only improves health outcomes but also represents a cost-effective option across different developmental regions in China.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Ferric Derisomaltose Versus Ferric Carboxymaltose in Patients with Iron Deficiency Anemia in China

INTRODUCTION

Intravenous (IV) iron is the recommended treatment for patients with iron deficiency anemia (IDA) unresponsive to oral iron treatment, in whom oral iron is contraindicated, or where rapid iron replenishment is required. Ferric derisomaltose (FDI) and ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) are high-dose, rapid-infusion, IV iron formulations that have recently been compared in three head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which showed significantly higher incidence of hypophosphatemia after administration of FCM than FDI. The present study objective was to evaluate the cost-utility of FDI versus FCM in a population of patients with IDA in China.

METHODS

A previously-published patient-level simulation model was used to model the cost-utility of FDI versus FCM in China. The number of infusions of FDI and FCM was modeled based on the approved posology of the respective formulations using simplified tables of iron need in a population of patients with body weight and hemoglobin levels informed by a Chinese RCT of FCM. Data on the incidence of hypophosphatemia was obtained from the PHOSPHARE-IDA RCT, while data on disease-related quality of life were obtained from SF-36v2 data from the PHOSPHARE-IBD RCT.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year time horizon, patients received 3.98 courses of iron treatment on average, requiring 0.90 fewer infusions of FDI than FCM (7.69 vs. 6.79). This resulted in iron procurement and administration cost savings of renminbi (RMB) 206 with FDI (RMB 3,519 vs. RMB 3,312). Reduced incidence of hypophosphatemia-related fatigue resulted in an increase of 0.07 quality-adjusted life years and further cost savings of RMB 782 over 5 years, driven by reduced need for phosphate testing and replenishment. FDI was therefore the dominant intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that FDI would improve patient quality of life and reduce direct healthcare expenditure versus FCM in patients with IDA in China.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Early High-Acuity Postoperative Care for Medium-Risk Surgical Patients

BACKGROUND

Initiatives in perioperative care warrant robust cost-effectiveness analysis in a cost-constrained era when high-value care is a priority. A model of anesthesia-led early high-acuity postoperative care, advanced recovery room care (ARRC), has shown benefit in terms of hospital and patient outcomes, but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been formally determined.

METHODS

Data from a previously published single-center prospective cohort study of ARRC in medium-risk patients were used to generate a Markov model, which described patient transition between care locations, each with different characteristics and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), using days at home (DAH) and hospital costs, was calculated for ARRC compared to usual ward care using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The Markov model accurately described patient disposition after surgery. For each patient, ARRC provided 4.3 more DAH within the first 90 days after surgery and decreased overall hospital costs by $1081 per patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that ARRC had a 99.3% probability of increased DAH and a 77.4% probability that ARRC was dominant from the perspective of the hospital, with improved outcomes and decreased costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Early high-acuity care for approximately 24 hours after surgery in medium-risk patients provides highly cost-effective improvements in outcomes when compared to usual ward care.

Additional Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy to Sorafenib Was Cost-Effective for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis

Purpose

The combination of sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (SoHAIC) has shown to enhance overall survival rates in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and major portal vein tumor thrombosis (HCC-Vp3-4) compared to sorafenib alone. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SoHAIC versus sorafenib for the treatment of HCC-Vp3-4, taking into account the viewpoint of Chinese healthcare payers.

Methods

This pharmacoeconomic study employed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating HCC-Vp3-4 with SoHAIC in comparison to sorafenib. The patient characteristics were drawn from individuals from the trial conducted between June 2017 and November 2019, with cost and health value data sourced from published literature. The primary outcome measure in this research was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per QALY was set at $30,492.00. Furthermore, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to validate the consistency of the results.

Results

In the baseline scenario, sorafenib resulted in 0.42 QALY at a cost of $10,507.89, while SoHAIC generated 1.66 QALY at a cost of $32,971.56. When comparing SoHAIC to sorafenib, the ICER was $18,237.20 per QALY, which was below the WTP threshold per QALY. Furthermore, the 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER remained within the WTP threshold despite fluctuations in variables. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SoHAIC had a 98.8% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold, considering a wide range of parameters.

Conclusion

In this cost-effectiveness evaluation, SoHAIC demonstrated cost-effectiveness over sorafenib for HCC with major portal vein tumor thrombosis, as observed from the perspective of a Chinese payer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin versus insulin in the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Although there have been many studies on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment, there is still a knowledge gap regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in the treatment phase. Existing studies have focused on treatment efficacy and drug safety, but relatively little has been explored regarding cost-effectiveness analysis. In particular, no comprehensive study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin for GDM treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this knowledge gap by conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatments for GDM.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in China. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the roll-back method. The strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥242,938 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The roll-back analysis indicated that insulin was not cost-effective compared to metformin, resulting in increased costs and decreased QALYs, with a negative ICER. These findings suggested that metformin is a cost-effective option than insulin. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis showed that the model was robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin, metformin is a cost-effective treatment option for GDM.

Cost effectiveness of hepatitis C direct acting agents

INTRODUCTION

Introduction of direct acting antivirals (DAA) has transformed treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and made the elimination of HCV an achievable goal set forward by World Health Organization by 2030. Multiple barriers need to be overcome for successful eradication of HCV. Availability of pan-genotypic HCV regimens has decreased the need for genotype testing but maintained high efficacy associated with DAAs.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment in patients with chronic HCV disease, with emphasis on general, cirrhosis, and vulnerable populations.

EXPERT OPINION

Multiple barriers exist limiting eradication of HCV, including cost to treatment, access, simplified testing, and implementing policy to foster treatment for all groups of HCV patients. Clinically, DAAs have drastically changed the landscape of HCV, but focused targeting of vulnerable groups is needed. Public policy will continue to play a strong role in eliminating HCV. While we will focus on the cost-effectiveness of DAA, several other factors regarding HCV require on going attention, such as increasing public awareness and decreasing social stigma associated with HCV, offering universal screening followed by linkage to treatment and improving preventive interventions to decrease spread of HCV.

The Limitations and Potentials of Evaluating Economic Aspects of Community-Based Health Promotion: A Critical Review

Community-based health promotion (CBHP) interventions are promising approaches to address public health problems; however, their economic evaluation presents unique challenges. This review aims to explore the opportunities and limitations of evaluating economic aspects of CBHP, focusing on the assessment of intervention costs and outcomes, and the consideration of political-level changes and health equity. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo databases identified 24 CBHP interventions, the majority of which targeted disadvantaged communities. Only five interventions included a detailed cost/resource assessment. Outcomes at the operational level were mainly quantitative, related to sociodemographics and environment or health status, while outcomes at the political level were often qualitative, related to public policy, capacity building or networks/collaboration. The study highlights the limitations of traditional health economic evaluation methods in capturing the complexity of CBHP interventions. It proposes the use of cost-consequence analysis (CCA) as a more comprehensive approach, offering a flexible and multifaceted assessment of costs and outcomes. However, challenges remain in the measurement and valuation of outcomes, equity considerations, intersectoral costs and attribution of effects. While CCA is a promising starting point, further research and methodological advancements are needed to refine its application and improve decision making in CBHP.

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

Managing the allergy and asthma epidemic in 2020s-Lessons from the Finnish experience

In Finland, a systematic public health programme was implemented from 2008 to 2018 to mitigate the burden of allergic disorders by revisiting the prevention strategy. Allergy health and contacts with natural environment were emphasized to promote immunological and psychological resilience instead of poorly justified avoidance. Allergy management practices were improved and low‐valued recommendations for care, for example for food allergy, were revised. Patients and families were empowered to use guided self‐management to proactively stop symptom exacerbations. A professional non‐governmental organization implemented the nationwide education for healthcare and patient NGOs for patients, families and lay public. In healthcare, the work supporting allergic patients and families was organized towards common goals and integrated into everyday work without extra costs. Reaching the predefined goals was followed by employing the national healthcare registers and questionnaire surveys. Governmental bodies contributed with kick‐off funding, which was supplemented by private funding. International collaboration, for example with the European patient organization (EFA), increased awareness of the Finnish action and predisposed it for peer review. The 10‐year results are favourable, patients are less disabled, practices and attitudes in healthcare have changed, and major cost savings have been obtained. Views of the lay public and patients are slow to move, however. Local multidisciplinary allergy teams were set up to continue the activities also after the Programme. Changes in environment and lifestyle in the last 50 years are the main reasons for the allergy rise. The Finnish experience may help to manage allergic diseases, improve nature relatedness in the fast‐urbanizing world, combat nature loss and reduce the disease burden.