The multinational nature of cost-effectiveness analyses alongside multinational clinical trials

Digital smartphone intervention to recognise and manage early warning signs in schizophrenia to prevent relapse: the EMPOWER feasibility cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

Relapse is a major determinant of outcome for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Early warning signs frequently precede relapse. A recent Cochrane Review found low-quality evidence to suggest a positive effect of early warning signs interventions on hospitalisation and relapse.

OBJECTIVE

How feasible is a study to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a digital intervention to recognise and promptly manage early warning signs of relapse in schizophrenia with the aim of preventing relapse?

DESIGN

A multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial involving eight community mental health services, with 12-month follow-up.

SETTINGS

Glasgow, UK, and Melbourne, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Service users were aged > 16 years and had a schizophrenia spectrum disorder with evidence of a relapse within the previous 2 years. Carers were eligible for inclusion if they were nominated by an eligible service user.

INTERVENTIONS

The Early signs Monitoring to Prevent relapse in psychosis and prOmote Wellbeing, Engagement, and Recovery (EMPOWER) intervention was designed to enable participants to monitor changes in their well-being daily using a mobile phone, blended with peer support. Clinical triage of changes in well-being that were suggestive of early signs of relapse was enabled through an algorithm that triggered a check-in prompt that informed a relapse prevention pathway, if warranted.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcomes were feasibility of the trial and feasibility, acceptability and usability of the intervention, as well as safety and performance. Candidate co-primary outcomes were relapse and fear of relapse.

RESULTS

We recruited 86 service users, of whom 73 were randomised (42 to EMPOWER and 31 to treatment as usual). Primary outcome data were collected for 84% of participants at 12 months. Feasibility data for people using the smartphone application (app) suggested that the app was easy to use and had a positive impact on motivations and intentions in relation to mental health. Actual app usage was high, with 91% of users who completed the baseline period meeting our a priori criterion of acceptable engagement (> 33%). The median time to discontinuation of > 33% app usage was 32 weeks (95% confidence interval 14 weeks to ∞). There were 8 out of 33 (24%) relapses in the EMPOWER arm and 13 out of 28 (46%) in the treatment-as-usual arm. Fewer participants in the EMPOWER arm had a relapse (relative risk 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.98), and time to first relapse (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.74) was longer in the EMPOWER arm than in the treatment-as-usual group. At 12 months, EMPOWER participants were less fearful of having a relapse than those in the treatment-as-usual arm (mean difference -4.29, 95% confidence interval -7.29 to -1.28). EMPOWER was more costly and more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3041. This incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be considered cost-effective when using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

LIMITATIONS

This was a feasibility study and the outcomes detected cannot be taken as evidence of efficacy or effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

A trial of digital technology to monitor early warning signs that blended with peer support and clinical triage to detect and prevent relapse is feasible.

FUTURE WORK

A main trial with a sample size of 500 (assuming 90% power and 20% dropout) would detect a clinically meaningful reduction in relapse (relative risk 0.7) and improvement in other variables (effect sizes 0.3-0.4).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN99559262.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding in Australia was provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1095879).

Cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes enhanced by self-management strategies to battle sedentary behaviour in older adults: protocol for an economic evaluation alongside the SITLESS three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Promoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis.The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states.Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen's University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study.This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This article reflects only the authors' view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.The findings of the study will be disseminated to different target groups (academia, policymakers, end users) through different means following the national ethical guidelines and the dissemination regulation of the Horizon 2020 funding agency.Use of the EuroQol was registered with the EuroQol Group in 2016.Use of the ICECAP-O was registered with the University of Birmingham in March 2017.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02629666; Pre-results.

[Economic analysis of multinational clinical trials in oncology]

In oncology, as in other fields of medicine, international multicentre clinical trials came into being so as to include a sufficient number of subjects to investigate a clinical situation. The existence of tight budgetary constraints and the desire to make the best use of the resources available have resulted in the development of economic evaluations associated with these trials, which, thanks to their level of evidence and their size, provide particularly relevant material. Nonetheless, economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials raise specific questions of methodology with regard to both the design and the analysis of the results. Indeed, the costs of goods and services consumed, the types and quantities of resources, and medical practices vary from one country to another and within an individual country. Economic data from the different countries involved must be available so as to study and to take into account this variability, and appropriate techniques for cost estimations and analysis must be implemented to aggregate the results from several countries. From a review of the literature, the aim of this work was to provide an overview of the specific methodological features of economic evaluations alongside international clinical trials: analysis of efficacy data from several countries, collection of resources and real costs, methods to establish the monetary value of resources, methods to aggregate results accounting for the trial effect.

Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Italian health economic evaluations and their generalizability or transferability to different settings.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the PubMed search engine to identify trial-based, nonexperimental prospective studies or model-based full economic evaluations carried out in Italy from 1995 to 2013. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers who applied a detailed checklist to assess the generalizability and quality of reporting. The review process followed a three-step blinded procedure. The reviewers who carried out the data extraction were blind as to the name of the author(s) of each study. Second, after the first review, articles were reassigned through a second blind randomization to a second reviewer. Finally, any disagreement between the first two reviewers was solved by a senior researcher.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one economic evaluations eventually met the inclusion criteria. Over time, we observed an increasing transparency in methods and a greater generalizability of results, along with a wider and more representative sample in trials and a larger adoption of transition-Markov models. However, often context-specific economic evaluations are carried out and not enough effort is made to ensure the transferability of their results to other contexts. In recent studies, cost-effectiveness analyses and the use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a quite positive temporal trend, generalizability of results still appears as an unsolved question, even if some indication of improvement within Italian studies has been observed.

Economic Evaluation alongside Multinational Studies: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies

Purpose of the study

This study seeks to explore methods for conducting economic evaluations alongside multinational trials by conducting a systematic review of the methods used in practice and the challenges that are typically faced by the researchers who conducted the economic evaluations.

Methods

A review was conducted for the period 2002 to 2012, with potentially relevant articles identified by searching the Medline, Embase and NHS EED databases. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations conducted alongside a multinational trial.

Results

A total of 44 studies out of a possible 2667 met the inclusion criteria. Methods used for the analyses varied between studies, indicating a lack of consensus on how economic evaluation alongside multinational studies should be carried out. The most common challenge appeared to be related to addressing differences between countries, which potentially hinders the generalisability and transferability of results. Other challenges reported included inadequate sample sizes and choosing cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions

It is recommended that additional guidelines be developed to aid researchers in this area and that these be based on an understanding of the challenges associated with multinational trials and the strengths and limitations of alternative approaches. Guidelines should focus on ensuring that results will aid decision makers in their individual countries.

Methodological developments in randomized controlled trial-based economic evaluations

Economic evaluation is a key contributor to decision making in health care, and it is important that it is carried out as effectively and reliably as possible. Studies carried out alongside randomised controlled trials are required to contribute real-world evidence to the decision-making process. However, the requirement that resource use be measured as well as effectiveness data within a trial results in additional complexity for trialists, and there are a number of methodological areas in which improvement is needed. This article reviews the literature in methodological work carried out to inform economic evaluation studies conducted alongside randomised controlled trials. Recent advances in areas including overall trial design, measuring resource use, measuring outcomes and reporting economic evaluations are discussed.

Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) a cost-effective treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement? A systematic review of economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies often undertake a review of economic evaluations of an intervention during an appraisal in order to identify published estimates of cost-effectiveness, to elicit comparisons with the results of their own model, and to support local reimbursement decision-making. The aim of this research is to determine whether Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) compared to medical management (MM) is cost-effective in patients ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), across different jurisdictions and country-specific evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2007-2012 was performed in the MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, EMBASE, and UK NHS EED databases according to standard methods, supplemented by a search of published HTA models. All identified publications were reviewed independently by two health economists. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 35-point checklist for economic evaluations was used to assess study reporting. To compare results, incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were converted to 2012 dollars using purchasing power parity (PPP) techniques.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified representing five reimbursement jurisdictions (England/Wales, Scotland, the US, Canada, and Belgium) and different modeling techniques. The identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. In addition, the model structures, time horizons, and cycle lengths varied. When adjusting for differences in currencies, the ICERs ranged from $27K-$65K per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite notable differences in modeling approach, under the thresholds defined by using either the local threshold value or that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold value, each study showed that TAVI was likely to be a cost-effective intervention for patients ineligible for SAVR.

Resource allocation strategies in Southeastern European health policy

The past 23 years of post-socialist restructuring of health system funding and management patterns has brought many changes to small Balkan markets, putting them under increasing pressure to keep pace with advancing globalization. Socioeconomic inequalities in healthcare access are still growing across the region. This uneven development is marked by the substantial difficulties encountered by local governments in delivering medical services to broad sectors of the population. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of the following evidence: published reports on health system reforms in the region commissioned by WHO, IMF, World Bank, OECD, European Commission; all available published evidence on health economics, funding, reimbursement in world/local languages since 1989 indexed at Medline, Excerpta Medica and Google Scholar; in depth analysis of official website data on medical care financing related legislation among key public institutions such as national Ministries of health, Health Insurance Funds, Professional Associations were applicable, in local languages; correspondence with key opinion leaders in the field in their respective communities. Contributors were asked to answer a particular set of questions related to the issue, thus enlightening fresh legislative developments and hidden patterns of policy maker's behavior. Cost awareness is slowly expanding in regional management, academic and industrial establishment. The study provides an exact and comprehensive description of its current extent and legislative framework. Western Balkans policy makers would profit substantially from health-economics-based decision-making to cope with increasing difficulties in funding and delivering medical care in emerging markets with a rapidly growing demand for health services.

Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

The best data for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of group-level interventions often come from cluster randomized trials (CRTs), where randomization is by cluster (e.g., the hospital attended), not by individual.

METHODS

for these CEAs need to recognize both the correlation between costs and outcomes and that these data may be dependent on the cluster. General checklists and methodological guidance for critically appraising CEA ignore these issues. This article develops a new checklist and applies it in a systematic review of CEAs that use CRTs.

METHODS

The authors developed a checklist for CEAs that use CRTs, informed by a conceptual review of statistical methods. This checklist included criteria such as whether the analysis allowed for both clustering and the correlation between individuals' costs and outcomes. The authors undertook a systematic literature review of full economic evaluations that used CRTs. The quality of studies was assessed with the new checklist and by the "Drummond checklist."

RESULTS

The authors identified 62 papers that met the inclusion criteria. On average, studies satisfied 9 of the 10 criteria for the checklist but only 20% of criteria for the new checklist. More than 40% of studies adopted statistical methods that completely ignored clustering, and 75% disregarded any correlation between costs and outcomes. Only 4 studies employed appropriate statistical methods that allowed for both clustering and correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

Most economic evaluations that use data from CRTs ignored clustering or correlation. Statistical methods that address these issues are available, and their use should be encouraged. The new checklist can supplement generic CEA guidelines and highlight where research practice can be improved.

Economic evaluation of caffeine for apnea of prematurity

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment with caffeine compared with placebo for apnea of prematurity in infants with birth weights less than 1250 g, from birth through 18 to 21 months' corrected age.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective economic evaluation of the cost per survivor without neurodevelopmental impairment by using individual-patient data from the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity clinical trial (N = 1869). We included direct medical costs either to the insurance payer or the hospital but excluded costs to parents and society, such as lost productivity. We used a price of $0.21/mg of generic caffeine citrate for our base-case analysis. All costs were expressed in 2008 Canadian dollars and discounted at 3%. The time horizon for this analysis extended through 18 to 21 months' corrected age to match the clinical trial.

RESULTS

The mean cost per infant was $124 466 in the caffeine group and $133 505 in the placebo group (difference: $9039 [-14 749 to -3375]; adjusted P = .014). Cost-effectiveness analysis showed caffeine to be a dominant or "win-win" therapy: in >99% of 1000 bootstrap replications of the analysis, caffeine-treated infants had simultaneously better outcomes and lower mean costs. These results were robust to a 1000% increase in the individual resource items, including the price of caffeine citrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with placebo, caffeine therapy for apnea of prematurity in infants weighing less than 1250 g is economically appealing for infants up to 18 to 21 months' corrected age.