'Lost in translation': accounting for between-country differences in the analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of cement augmentation for the fixation of unstable trochanteric fractures from a European perspective: Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of cement augmentation in Europe

INTRODUCTION

Hip fractures have a high patient burden and mortality rate, particularly following revision surgery. Cement augmentation of cephalomedullary nails has been shown to lower the risk of cut-out, aiming to reduce the need and expense of revision surgeries. The aim of this study was to assess the economic impact of cement augmentation for the fixation of trochanteric hip fractures in fragile, elderly patients, across a range of European countries (UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France), from both a provider (hospital) and a payer perspective.

METHOD

The budget impact (hospital perspective) and cost-effectiveness (payer perspective) analyses were informed by clinical outcomes from a meta-analysis published in 2021, additional published literature, registries, and clinical experts. Economic inputs included length of stay and operating time for the hospital perspective, revision surgery, outpatient, and rehabilitation days costs for the payer perspective. Outcomes included the breakeven cost below which using cement augmentation would begin to generate cost savings for the hospital, and potential cost savings for the payer with incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

RESULTS

From a hospital perspective, the breakeven cost below which the hospital would start saving money using cement augmentation was £491 (UK), €1490 (Spain), €1075 (Italy), €852 (Germany), and €834 (France) per patient, driven by reduced length of hospital stay. From a payer perspective, cost savings were £1675 (UK), €2202 (Spain), €993 (Italy), €944 (Germany), and €892 (France) per patient, mainly driven by fewer revision surgeries. Payer cost savings, coupled with incremental QALY gain of 0.004 across all regions, led to cement augmentation being the dominant strategy. These budget impact and cost-effectiveness results were rigorously tested in sensitivity analyses and were found to be robust.

CONCLUSION

These models support the wider adoption of cement augmentation to reduce the healthcare system costs associated with length of stay and revision surgery. These results provide useful information to providers, payers, and policymakers to ultimately influence choice surrounding the 'gold-standard' treatment of an unstable trochanteric fracture following low energy trauma.

Systematic Review of Tools and Approaches for Evaluating the Transferability of Health Technology Assessments Across Different Jurisdictions

BACKGROUND

This study aims to review tools that have been developed for the transferability of health technology assessment (HTA) information to different countries. HTA is increasingly being used as a tool in health policy decision-making, but its complexity and lack of local expertise have limited its usage in many countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has taken measures to encourage countries to conduct and use HTA, including through resolutions from the Eastern Mediterranean (EM) Regional Committee in 2019. However, due to limitations in national technical capacities, there is a need to adapt HTA information from other settings to fit the specific context of each country. Therefore, this study aims to systematically review the tools that have been developed for HTA transferability and assess their strengths and limitations.

METHODS

The systematic review included studies that introduced tools, methods, and frameworks for transferability of HTA information across jurisdictions. Databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, health economic database, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched, along with relevant bibliographies. The data was extracted and synthesized using both tabulation and narrative approaches. The evaluation of the tools involved assessing various criteria, such as user-friendliness, efficiency in screening, and considerations regarding transferability factors.

RESULTS

A total of 10 375 documents were evaluated, resulting in 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These 17 studies consisted of 13 newly developed tools/methods that were appraised. The majority of the models were checklists, with only a few deemed suitable for full HTA. Three models have been validated through published studies, but there is no evidence of utilization in the countries of the EM region.

CONCLUSION

While the existing tools provide valuable resources for evaluating transferability, there remains a need for a more comprehensive tool to support decision-makers in low-resource settings considering country context and capacity.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib as First-line Treatment for Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Iran

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy for frontline treatment of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) and a lifetime horizon. State memberships were determined by parametric survival analysis of the ALLIANCE (A041202) randomized controlled trial's results, comparing first-line ibrutinib with bendamustine plus rituximab. Direct medical costs were calculated from an Iranian health system perspective. Utility values were extracted from the literature to calculate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. To address parameter uncertainties, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab were associated with $3739.72 and $3991.20 costs per patient as the first-line treatment strategy, respectively. They resulted in an average of 2.86 and 2.66 QALYs per patient. Thus, first-line ibrutinib was associated with 0.20 incremental QALY and $251.48 cost-saving per patient and was therefore the "dominant" strategy. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, drug prices were the key drivers of model outputs. However, none of the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the currently accepted threshold by the Iranian Food and Drug Administration ($1550 per QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 63.3% of iterations were cost-saving and 77.4% were cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ibrutinib as a first-line treatment appears to be the dominant strategy, compared with the standard of care, for unselected older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

Survival Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of Silver Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART) and ART Occlusal Restorations in Primary Molars: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the clinical performance and cost effectiveness of Silver Modified Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (SMART) and Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) restorations in primary molars over 12 months follow up period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-seven children, aged 5-9 years old having at least one asymptomatic primary molar with active caries, were randomly assigned to either the test arm (SMART) or the control arm (ART). Clinical performance was assessed after 6 and 12-months using the modified United States Public Health Services criteria. The trial was registered at Clinical Trial.gov with a registration number (NCT03881020). Treatment time for each restoration was recorded, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were performed (p<0.05) and cost effectiveness was measured at the end of the study.

RESULTS

Both techniques showed comparable clinical performance and the mean survival time was 11.8 and 11.6 months for SMART and ART restorations respectively with no detected significant differences (p=0.416). Mean treatment time for SMART restorations (7.8 min.), however, was significantly lower than ART (15 min.) (p < 0.001). SMART technique, also, showed statistically significant lower mean total cost per restoration (p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Though SMART and ART have comparable clinical performance and survival in single-surface occlusal restorations in primary molars, SMART is less time consuming and more cost effective.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using SMART technique could change paradigms in caries management. Being a patient friendly and cost-effective approach, it could be adopted as a superior treatment option when dealing with young children, those with behavioral and medical challenges and for promoting access to oral care among the underprivileged.

Evaluating the cost utility of racecadotril in addition to oral rehydration solution versus oral rehydration solution alone for children with acute watery diarrhea in four low middle-income countries: Egypt, Morocco, Philippines and Vietnam

AIM

To evaluate the cost utility of adjunct racecadotril and oral rehydration solution (R + ORS) versus oral rehydration solution (ORS) alone for the treatment of diarrhoea in children under five years with acute watery diarrhoea in four low-middle income countries.

METHOD

A cost utility model, previously developed and independently validated, has been adapted to Egypt, Morocco, Philippines and Vietnam. The model is a decision tree, cohort model programmed in Microsoft Excel. The model structure represents the country-specific clinical pathways. The target population is children under the age of five years presenting with symptoms of acute watery diarrhea to an outpatient clinic or general physician practice. A healthcare payer perspective has been analysed with the model parameterised with local data, where available. Most recent cost data has been used to inform the drug, outpatient and inpatient costs. Uncertainty has been explored with univariate deterministic sensitivity.

RESULTS

According to the base case models, R + ORS is dominant (cost-saving, more effective) versus ORS alone in Egypt, Morocco, Philippines and Vietnam. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in each country fall in the southeast (cost-saving, more effective) quadrant and represent a cost savings of -304,152 EGP per QALY gain in Egypt; -6,561 MAD per QALY gain in Morocco; -428,612 PHP per QALY gain in Philippines and -113,985,734 VND per QALY gain in Vietnam. Univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis shows that the three most influential parameters across all country adaptations are the utility of children without diarrhea; the utility of inpatient children with diarrhea and the cost of one night of inpatient care.

CONCLUSION

In keeping with similar findings in upper-middle and high-income countries, the cost utility of R + ORS versus ORS is favourable in low-middle income countries for the treatment of children under five with acute watery diarrhoea.

An overview of critical decision-points in the medical product lifecycle: Where to include patient preference information in the decision-making process?

BACKGROUND

Patient preference (PP) information is not effectively integrated in decision-making throughout the medical product lifecycle (MPLC), despite having the potential to improve patients' healthcare options. A first step requires an understanding of existing processes and decision-points to know how to incorporate PP information in order to improve patient-centric decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to: 1) identify the decision-making processes and decision-points throughout the MPLC for industry, regulatory authorities, and reimbursement/HTA, and 2) determine which decision-points can potentially include PP information.

METHODS

A scoping literature review was conducted using five scientific databases. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from seven European countries and the US, including industry (n = 24), regulatory authorities (n = 23), reimbursement/HTA (n = 23). Finally, validation meetings with key stakeholders (n = 11) were conducted.

RESULTS

Six critical decision-points were identified for industry decision-making, three for regulatory decision-making, and six for reimbursement/HTA decision-making. Stakeholder groups agreed that PP information is not systematically integrated, either as obligatory information or pre-set criteria, but would benefit all the listed decision-points in the future.

CONCLUSION

Currently, PP information is not considered as obligatory information to submit for any of the MPLC decision-points. However, PP information is considered an important component by most stakeholders to inform future decision-making across the MPLC. The integration of PP information into 15 identified decision-points needs continued discussion and collaboration between stakeholders.

A one stop shop for cost-effectiveness evidence? Recommendations for improving Disease Control Priorities

Setting out a health benefits package (HBP) of interventions to be prioritised for funding is an important step towards achieving universal health coverage in low and middle income countries. The 3rd version of the Disease Control Priorities (DCP3) database, and other similar databases, aim to establishing a single point of reference (“one stop shop”) for cost effectiveness evidence to inform HBP design and other policy making. We reflect upon our experiences in using DCP3 for HBP design and offer suggestions for improving the future reporting of cost-effectiveness evidence. We appraise DCP3 based on generalisability, level of detail, and accessibility. We find that DCP and similar initiatives should be commended for the systematic assessment of a vast array of cost-effectiveness studies—the magnitude of such an endeavour is impressive in its own right. However, there are flaws. In future, providing disaggregated estimates of costs and effects, quantifying uncertainty, and systematically assessing the context in which estimates apply would make this evidence more useful for decision makers.

[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.

The use of random-effects models to identify health care center-related characteristics modifying the effect of antipsychotic drugs

Purpose

A case study was conducted, exploring methods to identify drugs effects modifiers, at a health care center level.

Patients and methods

Data were drawn from the Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcome cohort, including hierarchical information on 6641 patients, recruited from 899 health care centers from across ten European countries. Center-level characteristics included the following: psychiatrist’s gender, age, length of practice experience, practice setting and type, countries’ Healthcare System Efficiency score, and psychiatrist density in the country. Mixed multivariable linear regression models were used: 1) to estimate antipsychotic drugs’ effectiveness (defined as the association between patients’ outcome at 3 months – dependent variable, continuous – and antipsychotic drug initiation at baseline – drug A vs other antipsychotic drug); 2) to estimate the similarity between clustered data (using the intra-cluster correlation coefficient); and 3) to explore antipsychotic drug effects modification by center-related characteristics (using the addition of an interaction term).

Results

About 23% of the variance found for patients’ outcome was explained by unmeasured confounding at a center level. Psychiatrists’ practice experience was found to be associated with patient outcomes (p=0.04) and modified the relative effect of “drug A” (p<0.001), independent of center- or patient-related characteristics.

Conclusion

Mixed models may be useful to explore how center-related characteristics modify drugs’ effect estimates, but require numerous assumptions.

Establishing benchmark EQ-5D-3L population health state utilities and identifying their correlates in Gansu Province, China

PURPOSES

Despite a flurry of cost utility analyses conducted in the Chinese population in recent years, a standard set of health state utilities (HSUs) for the Chinese population is lacking. The aims of this study were to (1) determine benchmark age- and sex-specific HSUs for a Chinese population, and (2) assess key correlates of HSUs in this population.

METHODS

Quality-of-life was evaluated using the validated EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. HSUs were calculated using data collected from Gansu Province (n = 9833). Overall differences in HSUs were analysed using linear regression and a two-tailed p value <0.05 was determined to be statistically significant. The minimal difference in weighted index was set at 0.074.

RESULTS

HSUs decreased with age in both males and females. Living in the non-capital areas, being separated/divorced/widowed or never married, being never educated, diagnosed with chronic disease, and no regular physical activity were associated with lower HSUs. HSUs for women were lower than for men in univariate regression analysis; however, no differences were found after adjusting for other covariates. In addition, the difference in HSU reached the level of minimal difference in weighted index for participants with chronic disease. HSUs for those who were diagnosed with chronic disease were 0.098 (0.092-0.104) lower than those without chronic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports HSUs for a Chinese population in Gansu and investigates the key correlates of HSUs in this population. In addition, the use of EQ-5D-3L in assessing population health is limited given the high ceiling effect and skewed HSUs.

Prioritizing health system and disease burden factors: an evaluation of the net benefit of transferring health technology interventions to different districts in Zimbabwe

INTRODUCTION

Health-care technologies (HCTs) play an important role in any country's health-care system. Zimbabwe's health-care system uses a lot of HCTs developed in other countries. However, a number of local factors have affected the absorption and use of these technologies. We therefore set out to test the hypothesis that the net benefit regression framework (NBRF) could be a helpful benefit testing model that enables assessment of intra-national variables in HCT transfer.

METHOD

We used an NBRF model to assess the benefits of transferring cost-effective technologies to different jurisdictions. We used the country's 57 administrative districts to proxy different jurisdictions. For the dependent variable, we combined the cost and effectiveness ratios with the districts' per capita health expenditure. The cost and effectiveness ratios were obtained from HIV/AIDS and malaria randomized controlled trials, which did either a prospective or retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. The independent variables were district demographic and socioeconomic determinants of health.

RESULTS

The study showed that intra-national variation resulted in different net benefits of the same health technology intervention if implemented in different districts in Zimbabwe. The study showed that population data, health data, infrastructure, demographic and health-seeking behavior had significant effects on the net margin benefit for the different districts. The net benefits also differed in terms of magnitude as a result of the local factors.

CONCLUSION

Net benefit testing using local data is a very useful tool for assessing the transferability and further adoption of HCTs developed elsewhere. However, adopting interventions with a positive net benefit should also not be an end in itself. Information on positive or negative net benefit could also be used to ascertain either the level of future savings that a technology can realize or the level of investment needed for the particular technology to become beneficial.

Incorporating Demand and Supply Constraints into Economic Evaluations in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries

Global guidelines for new technologies are based on cost and efficacy data from a limited number of trial locations. Country-level decision makers need to consider whether cost-effectiveness analysis used to inform global guidelines are sufficient for their situation or whether to use models that adjust cost-effectiveness results taking into account setting-specific epidemiological and cost heterogeneity. However, demand and supply constraints will also impact cost-effectiveness by influencing the standard of care and the use and implementation of any new technology. These constraints may also vary substantially by setting. We present two case studies of economic evaluations of the introduction of new diagnostics for malaria and tuberculosis control. These case studies are used to analyse how the scope of economic evaluations of each technology expanded to account for and then address demand and supply constraints over time. We use these case studies to inform a conceptual framework that can be used to explore the characteristics of intervention complexity and the influence of demand and supply constraints. Finally, we describe a number of feasible steps that researchers who wish to apply our framework in cost-effectiveness analyses.

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.

Rational centre selection for RCTs with a parallel economic evaluation--the next step towards increased generalisability?

The paper discusses the impact of centre selection on the generalisability of randomised controlled trial (RCT)-based economic evaluations and suggests a future research agenda. The first section briefly reviews the current methods for addressing generalisability. We argue that these methods make no verifiable assumptions about how representative the recruiting centres are to the population of centres in the jurisdiction. The second section uses data from a multicentre RCT to illustrate that cost-effectiveness estimates can be influenced by the sample of recruiting centres. Finally, we propose two concepts that may advance generalisability research. First, we distinguish between the 'research space' and the 'policy space' and argue that policy makers are interested in the latter, while current methods describe the former. Second, we propose a centre-specific generalisability index used at RCT design stage to address generalisability. We conclude that future research should focus on generalisability at RCT design stage rather than on post hoc analyses.

Refitting of the UKPDS 68 risk equations to contemporary routine clinical practice data in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Economic evaluations of new diabetes therapies rely heavily upon the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) equations for prediction of cardiovascular events; however, concerns persist regarding their relevance to current clinical practice and appropriate use in populations other than newly diagnosed patients. This study refits the UKPDS 68 event equations, using contemporary data describing low- and intermediate-risk patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Anonymized patient data describing demographics, risk factors and incidence of cardiovascular and microvascular events were extracted from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database over the 10-year period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2009. Following multiple imputation of missing values, accelerated failure-time Weibull regression equations were refitted to produce new coefficients for each risk group. Discriminatory performance was assessed and compared with both UKPDS 68 and UKPDS 82 risk equations, and the implication of coefficient choice within an economic evaluation was assessed using the Cardiff type 2 diabetes model.

RESULTS

When applied to patient-level data, the three sets of coefficients (UKPDS, THIN low-risk and intermediate-risk) lead to fairly consistent predictions of the 5-year risk of events. Exceptions include lower predicted rates of myocardial infarction and higher rates of ischaemic heart disease, congestive heart failure and end-stage renal disease with both sets of revised THIN coefficients compared with UKPDS. Over a modelled lifetime, the coefficients derived from the low-risk data predict fewer total cardiovascular events compared with UKPDS, while those from the intermediate-risk data predict a greater number. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves demonstrated a marginal improvement in the discriminatory performance of the refitted equations. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with dapagliflozin versus sulphonylurea in addition to metformin changed from £7,708 to £7,519 and £6,906 per QALY gained, using the THIN intermediate- and low-risk coefficients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that while the UKPDS equations perform best in newly diagnosed patients, they may overpredict the lifetime risk in this group and underpredict it in patients with more advanced diabetes. Implementation of the revised coefficients will result in different absolute numbers of predicted diabetes-related events; however, they are not expected to significantly affect the conclusions of economic modelling.

Design of an international multicentre RCT on group schema therapy for borderline personality disorder

BACKGROUND

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe and highly prevalent mental disorder. Schema therapy (ST) has been found effective in the treatment of BPD and is commonly delivered through an individual format. A group format (group schema therapy, GST) has also been developed. GST has been found to speed up and amplify the treatment effects found for individual ST. Delivery in a group format may lead to improved cost-effectiveness. An important question is how GST compares to treatment as usual (TAU) and what format for delivery of schema therapy (format A; intensive group therapy only, or format B; a combination of group and individual therapy) produces the best outcomes.

METHODS/DESIGN

An international, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted with a minimum of fourteen participating centres. Each centre will recruit multiple cohorts of at least sixteen patients. GST formats as well as the orders in which they are delivered to successive cohorts will be balanced. Within countries that contribute an uneven number of sites, the orders of GST formats will be balanced within a difference of one. The RCT is designed to include a minimum of 448 patients with BPD. The primary clinical outcome measure will be BPD severity. Secondary clinical outcome measures will include measures of BPD and general psychiatric symptoms, schemas and schema modes, social functioning and quality of life. Furthermore, an economic evaluation that consists of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed using a societal perspective. Lastly, additional investigations will be carried out that include an assessment of the integrity of GST, a qualitative study on patients' and therapists' experiences with GST, and studies on variables that might influence the effectiveness of GST.

DISCUSSION

This trial will compare GST to TAU for patients with BPD as well as two different formats for the delivery of GST. By combining an evaluation of clinical effectiveness, an economic evaluation and additional investigations, it will contribute to an evidence-based understanding of which treatment should be offered to patients with BPD from clinical, economic, and stakeholders' perspectives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register NTR2392. Registered 25 June 2010.

Economic studies in colorectal cancer: challenges in measuring and comparing costs

Estimates of the costs associated with cancer care are essential both for assessing burden of disease at the population level and for conducting economic evaluations of interventions to prevent, detect, or treat cancer. Comparisons of cancer costs between health systems and across countries can improve understanding of the economic consequences of different health-care policies and programs. We conducted a structured review of the published literature on colorectal cancer (CRC) costs, including direct medical, direct nonmedical (ie, patient and caregiver time, travel), and productivity losses. We used MEDLINE to identify English language articles published between 2000 and 2010 and found 55 studies. The majority were conducted in the United States (52.7%), followed by France (12.7%), Canada (10.9%), the United Kingdom (9.1%), and other countries (9.1%). Almost 90% of studies estimated direct medical costs, but few studies estimated patient or caregiver time costs or productivity losses associated with CRC. Within a country, we found significant heterogeneity across the studies in populations examined, health-care delivery settings, methods for identifying incident and prevalent patients, types of medical services included, and analyses. Consequently, findings from studies with seemingly the same objective (eg, costs of chemotherapy in year following CRC diagnosis) are difficult to compare. Across countries, aggregate and patient-level estimates vary in so many respects that they are almost impossible to compare. Our findings suggest that valid cost comparisons should be based on studies with explicit standardization of populations, services, measures of costs, and methods with the goal of comparability within or between health systems or countries. Expected increases in CRC prevalence and costs in the future highlight the importance of such studies for informing health-care policy and program planning.

Cost-utility analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir versus atazanavir + ritonavir administered as first-line therapy for the treatment of HIV infection in Italy: from randomised trial to real world

Objective

To estimate the lifetime cost utility of two antiretroviral regimens (once-daily atazanavir plus ritonavir [ATV+r] versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r]) in Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naïve to treatment.

Design

With this observational retrospective study we collected the clinical data of a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving first-line treatment with LPV/r or ATV+r.

Methodology

A Markov microsimulation model including direct costs and health outcomes of first- and second-line highly active retroviral therapy was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer’s perspective. Health and monetary outcomes associated with the long-term use of ATV+r and LPV/r regimens were evaluated on the basis of eight health states, incidence of diarrhoea and hyperbilirubinemia, AIDS events, opportunistic infections, coronary heart disease events and, for the first time in an economic evaluation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) events. In order to account for possible deviations between real-life data and randomised controlled trial results, a second control arm (ATV+r 2) was created with differential transition probabilities taken from the literature.

Results

The average survival was 24.061 years for patients receiving LPV/r, 24.081 and 24.084 for those receiving ATV+r 1 and 2 respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for the patients receiving LPV/r than those receiving ATV+r (13.322 vs. 13.060 and 13.261 for ATV+r 1 and 2). The cost-utility values were 15,310.56 for LPV/r, 15,902.99 and 15,524.85 for ATV+r 1 and 2.

Conclusions

Using real-life data, the model produced significantly different results compared with other studies. With the innovative addition of an evaluation of CKD events, the model showed a cost-utility value advantage for twice-daily LPV/r over once-daily ATV+r, thus providing evidence for its continued use in the treatment of HIV.

Health technology assessment in Poland and Scotland: comparison of process and decisions

OBJECTIVES

We compared Polish and Scottish Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process in order to elicit recommendations for future development of HTA methodological guidelines in Poland.

METHODS

We studied the differences between Polish and Scottish HTA methodological guidelines. HTA recommendations issued by Polish HTA agency (AHTAPol) in the period January 1 through December 31, 2008, were benchmarked to HTA guidance published by Scottish Medical Consortium (SMC) for the same drug technology.

RESULTS

The Scottish HTA methodological guidelines were more instructive in terms of clinical and economic evaluations than Polish guidelines. SMC evaluated forty-eight of sixty-eight drug technologies appraised by AHTAPoL. There were thirty drug technologies that received similar guidance in both countries and eighteen with contradictory HTA recommendations. In Scotland, there were more positive HTA recommendations than there were in Poland. While comments about efficacy or safety were commonplace among reasons for negative recommendations in Poland, insufficient justification of treatment's cost in relation to benefits was the most often cited reason for rejection in Scotland. SMC tended to recommend restricted use to specific sub-populations for several drug technologies negatively appraised by AHTAPoL.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison between SMC and AHTAPoL suggests that there is potential room of improvement of the Polish HTA methodological guidelines. Comparative effectiveness and safety, subgroup analysis, and adaptation of models to local settings were identified as key areas for further development of Polish HTA methodological guidelines.

Deriving input parameters for cost-effectiveness modeling: taxonomy of data types and approaches to their statistical synthesis

BACKGROUND

The evidence base informing economic evaluation models is rarely derived from a single source. Researchers are typically expected to identify and combine available data to inform the estimation of model parameters for a particular decision problem. The absence of clear guidelines on what data can be used and how to effectively synthesize this evidence base under different scenarios inevitably leads to different approaches being used by different modelers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to produce a taxonomy that can help modelers identify the most appropriate methods to use when synthesizing the available data for a given model parameter.

METHODS

This article developed a taxonomy based on possible scenarios faced by the analyst when dealing with the available evidence. While mainly focusing on clinical effectiveness parameters, this article also discusses strategies relevant to other key input parameters in any economic model (i.e., disease natural history, resource use/costs, and preferences).

RESULTS

The taxonomy categorizes the evidence base for health economic modeling according to whether 1) single or multiple data sources are available, 2) individual or aggregate data are available (or both), or 3) individual or multiple decision model parameters are to be estimated from the data. References to examples of the key methodological developments for each entry in the taxonomy together with citations to where such methods have been used in practice are provided throughout.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the taxonomy developed in this article hopes to improve the quality of the synthesis of evidence informing decision models by bringing to the attention of health economics modelers recent methodological developments in this field.

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

BACKGROUND

XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).

RESULTS

XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was $2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was $240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was $16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37% greater than that of XELOX. The addition of the societal costs increased the total treatment cost per patient to $17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.

CONCLUSION

XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.

The two-compound formulation of calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate for treatment of moderately severe body and scalp psoriasis - an introduction

Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease and many patients require lifelong treatment. Characteristic scaly, itchy, unsightly psoriatic lesions affect many body areas and most patients commonly experience scalp involvement. The cosmetic embarrassment of visible body lesions, inaccessibility of scalp skin to application of therapies and proximity of sensitive facial skin add to the challenges of most patients managing their psoriasis long term. Psoriasis can severely impact patients' quality of life. This can impact significantly on the patient. In economic terms patients may incur increased out-of-pocket expenditure or extended time away from work as a direct consequence of psoriasis, particularly in severe cases; In many countries, specialist review of patients provides pressures on hard-pressed services and the costs of psoriasis care are substantial, particularly in patients with severe recalcitrant psoriasis which may require lengthy inpatient admission. Around 80% of patients with psoriasis have mild to moderately severe disease and the majority are treated with topical medicines by their physician in primary care. Despite the availability of a wide range of treatment options, regimens have been unsatisfactory, associated with patient dissatisfaction, poor compliance and often safety concerns with long-term use. Evidence-based clinical guidelines aim to improve healthcare of patients and while there are such guidelines for psoriasis, to date the challenges of (and recommendations for) managing scalp psoriasis are often limited or missing from these treatment guidelines. In the following in-journal supplement, a connected suite of five papers focus on the use of topical therapies for the treatment of the person afflicted with psoriasis. This work harnesses robust evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of topical therapies commonly used in psoriasis patients and translates this into recommendations for the most appropriate treatment of patients with body or scalp psoriasis, from an efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness perspective. Based upon systematic review and harnessing 'state of the art' evidence assessment methodologies, the modelling work suggests that the use of a two-compound formulation (TCF) product of calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate is the most appropriate treatment option for both body and scalp psoriasis. This Editorial acknowledges the results of any modelling exercise have limitations; indeed such limitations are acknowledged in each modelling contribution in this issue. With these caveats in mind, this introductory paper considers the implications of this research and distillation of the evidence. This work should guide cost-effective treatment choices for body and scalp psoriasis, assist in recommendations for management of scalp psoriasis in future iterations of psoriasis clinical guidelines and help primary care physicians striving to attain best outcomes in the care of the person with psoriasis.

Integrated surveys of neglected tropical diseases in southern Sudan: how much do they cost and can they be refined?

BACKGROUND

Increasing emphasis on integrated control of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) requires identification of co-endemic areas. Integrated surveys for lymphatic filariasis (LF), schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection have been recommended for this purpose. Integrated survey designs inevitably involve balancing the costs of surveys against accuracy of classifying areas for treatment, so-called implementation units (IUs). This requires an understanding of the main cost drivers and of how operating procedures may affect both cost and accuracy of surveys. Here we report a detailed cost analysis of the first round of integrated NTD surveys in Southern Sudan.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Financial and economic costs were estimated from financial expenditure records and interviews with survey staff using an ingredients approach. The main outcome was cost per IU surveyed. Uncertain variables were subjected to univariate sensitivity analysis and the effects of modifying standard operating procedures were explored. The average economic cost per IU surveyed was USD 40,206 or USD 9,573, depending on the size of the IU. The major cost drivers were two key categories of recurrent costs: i) survey consumables, and ii) personnel.

CONCLUSION

The cost of integrated surveys in Southern Sudan could be reduced by surveying larger administrative areas for LF. If this approach was taken, the estimated economic cost of completing LF, schistosomiasis and STH mapping in Southern Sudan would amount to USD 1.6 million. The methodological detail and costing template provided here could be used to generate cost estimates in other settings and readily compare these to the present study, and may help budget for integrated and single NTDs surveys elsewhere.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart 30 in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

To review the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) compared to other insulin regimens in the treatment of type 2 diabetes based on published literature.

METHODS

The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit and a selection of congress/meeting databases were systematically searched using combinations of search terms designed to identify publications describing cost-effectiveness analyses of BIAsp 30 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Searches were limited to studies in humans, and published in the English language between January 1999 and July 2009. All records were screened for inclusion in the review.

RESULTS

Seven published cost-effectiveness analyses and ten abstracts were identified. One was a health technology assessment from the UK, which evaluated cost-effectiveness using the UKPDS Outcomes Model and meta-analysis of published clinical trials and concluded that premixed insulin analogs were unlikely to be cost-effective versus insulin glargine or biphasic human insulin. In all other studies the cost-effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus other insulin regimens was assessed using the validated CORE Diabetes Model and outcomes from either the INITIATE randomized controlled trial, or the PRESENT or IMPROVE observational studies. However, notable limitations include the fact that all cost-effectiveness analyses to date have been performed using a single model and that a number of these are based on data from observational studies rather than randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, long-term clinical and economic outcomes were reported for several countries: UK, US, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea and China. BIAsp 30 was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy in all countries. Estimates of direct costs varied according to country and comparator, but incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the US and UK were USD 46 533 and GBP 6951 per quality-adjusted life year gained for BIAsp 30 versus insulin glargine.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cost-effectiveness data on BIAsp 30 are scarce the majority of the analyses identified in this review suggest that BIAsp 30 is likely to be cost-effective compared to insulin glargine and biphasic human insulin across a wide range of settings, and under certain circumstances would be a dominant treatment option.

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

OBJECTIVES

Applied and methodological evidence to the conduct of economic evaluations alongside multinational clinical trials have appeared in the literature over the last decade. Nevertheless, little is known about the number and identity of countries participating in these studies. A structured review was carried out to assess the reporting of the multinational nature of these studies.

METHODS

A structured review was conducted by using online databases from January 1996 to December 2007. Articles were included if they reported cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multinational randomized trial with individual patient-level data on resource use and outcome in more than one country. Key data extracted included country information, sample size, unit cost collection, methods to calculate costs and effects, and the reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Sixty-five studies out of a total of 591 articles identified in the original search fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Information about countries participating in the trial was not reported in 16 (26%) of the 65 studies. The overall sample size from all the randomized controlled trials identified was estimated to be 172,401 patients. Country-specific sample size was reported for 74,852 (43%) of the patients, but the country contribution was unknown for 97,549 (57%) of the participants.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of the multinational nature of these studies is currently inadequate. Therefore, future guidelines of transferability of economic evaluations across settings should emphasize the importance of reporting the number and identity of countries and their contribution to the overall sample size in cost-effectiveness analyses alongside multinational clinical trials.

The analysis of multinational cost-effectiveness data for reimbursement decisions: a critical appraisal of recent methodological developments

Evidence produced by multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness studies is often used to inform decisions concerning the adoption of new healthcare technologies. A key issue relating to the use of this type of evidence is the extent to which trial-wide economic results are applicable to every single country participating in the study. We consider what role cost-effectiveness analysis alongside multinational trials should have in assisting reimbursement decisions at jurisdiction and national levels. Using the proposed framework as a benchmark to evaluate their relative pros and cons, we then describe and review the statistical approaches used in the multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness literature. The results of the review are used to define the desirable characteristics a statistical method for the analysis of data collected from different jurisdictions should have in order to be consistent with the proposed framework. It is argued that Bayesian hierarchical models that use both patient- and country-level information are the most appropriate tool to analyse multinational trial-based cost-effectiveness data and facilitate the between-country generalizability assessment of the study findings. The merits of each approach are discussed, highlighting problems and limitations, in order to identify areas of future research.

Prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 study showed that patients with advanced colorectal cancer had improved overall survival when cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeting antibody, was given in addition to best supportive care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using prospectively collected resource utilization and health utility data for patients in the CO.17 study who received cetuximab plus best supportive care (N = 283) or best supportive care alone (N = 274).

METHODS

Direct medical resource utilization data were collected, including medications, physician visits, toxicity management, blood products, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Mean survival times for the study arms were calculated for the entire population and for the subset of patients with wild-type KRAS tumors over an 18- to 19-month period. All costs were presented in 2007 Canadian dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to determine the robustness of the results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the incremental cost-utility ratios were estimated by use of a nonparametric bootstrapping method (with 1000 iterations).

RESULTS

For the entire study population, the mean improvement in overall and quality-adjusted survival with cetuximab was 0.12 years and 0.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively. The incremental cost with cetuximab compared with best supportive care was $23,969. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $199,742 per life-year gained (95% CI = $125,973 to $652,492 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost-utility ratio was $299,613 per QALY gained (95% CI = $187,440 to $898,201 per QALY gained). For patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, the incremental cost with cetuximab was $33,617 and mean gains in overall and quality-adjusted survival were 0.28 years and 0.18 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $120,061 per life-year gained (95% CI = $88,679 to $207,075 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost-utility ratio was $186,761 per QALY gained (95% CI = $130,326 to $334,940 per QALY gained). In a sensitivity analysis, cetuximab cost and patient survival were the only variables that influenced cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cetuximab over best supportive care alone in unselected advanced colorectal cancer patients is high and sensitive to drug cost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lower when the analysis was limited to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors.

Transferability indices for health economic evaluations: methods and applications

In this paper, we have elaborated an index in two phases to measure the degree of transferability of the results of the economic evaluation of health technologies. In the first phase, we have considered the objective factors (critical and non-critical) to derive a general transferability index, which can be used to measure this internal property of the studies of economic evaluation applied to health technologies. In the second phase, with a more specific index, we have measured the degree of applicability of the results of a given study to a different setting. Both indices have been combined (arithmetic and geometric mean) to obtain a global transferability index. We have applied the global index to a sample of 27 Spanish studies on infectious diseases. We have obtained an average value for the index of 0.54, quite far from the maximum theoretical value of 1. We also found that 11 studies lacked some critical factor and were directly deemed as not transferable.

Transferability of economic evaluations across jurisdictions: ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report

ABSTRACT A growing number of jurisdictions now request economic data in support of their decision-making procedures for the pricing and/or reimbursement of health technologies. Because more jurisdictions request economic data, the burden on study sponsors and researchers increases. There are many reasons why the cost-effectiveness of health technologies might vary from place to place. Therefore, this report of an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force reviews what national guidelines for economic evaluation say about transferability, discusses which elements of data could potentially vary from place to place, and recommends good research practices for dealing with aspects of transferability, including strategies based on the analysis of individual patient data and based on decision-analytic modeling.

Trastuzumab treatment of early stage breast cancer is cost-effective from the perspective of the Belgian health care authorities

Trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche) is a recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the neu-HER2 protein, since May 2002 reimbursed in Belgium for the treatment of metastatic HER2+ breast cancer and since June 2007 also in adjuvant therapy of HER2+ early stage breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness from the Belgian health care payer perspective of reimbursing trastuzumab in the Latter indication. A Markov state transition model was designed to adequately capture the natural history and course of disease for early stage breast cancer patients, and to simulate cost and disease progression over a life time perspective. The model estimates differences in outcomes for patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab during 1 year compared to current therapy, and captures cost consequences and health benefits of trastuzumab treatment. Health benefits were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years gained, and future benefits were discounted at 1.5%. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the Belgian authorities' health care budget, and future costs were discounted at 3%. Where relevant, the costs per Markov state were obtained from the IMS Hospital Disease database. Additionally, an expert opinion analysis on resource use during the follow-up of treated early breast cancer patients provided the cost estimates for states with minor or without hospital costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on a life time simulation was estimated at Euro 10,315 per quality-adjusted life year gained. It can be concluded that trastuzumab treatment of HER2+ early stage breast cancer patients is cost-effective from the perspective of the Belgian health care authorities.

Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Use and acceptance of health economic evaluations (HEEs) has been much greater in developed than in developing nations. Nevertheless, while developing countries lag behind in the development of HEE methods, they could benefit from the progress made in other countries and concentrate on ways in which existing methods can be used or would need to be modified to fulfill their specific needs. HEEs, as context-specific tools, are not easily generalizable from setting to setting. Existing studies regarding generalizability and transferability of HEEs have primarily been conducted in developed countries. Therefore, a legitimate question for policy makers in Latin America and the Caribbean region (LAC) is to what extent HEEs conducted in industrialized economies and in LAC are generalizable to LAC (trans-regional) and to other LAC countries (intra-regional), respectively. We conducted a systematic review, searching the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Office of Health Economics Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED), LILACS (Latin America health bibliographic database) and NEVALAT (Latin American Network on HEE) to identify HEEs published between 1980 and 2004. We included individual patient- and model-based HEEs (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit and cost-consequences analyses) that involved at least one LAC country. Data were extracted by three independent reviewers using a checklist validated by regional and international experts. From 521 studies retrieved, 72 were full HEEs (39% randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 32% models, 17% non-randomized studies and 12% mixed trial-modeling approach). Over one-third of identified studies did not specifically report the type of HEE. Cost-effectiveness and cost-consequence analyses accounted for almost 80% of the studies. The three Latin American countries with the highest participation in HEE studies were Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. While we found relatively good standards of reporting the study's question, population, interventions, comparators and conclusions, the overall reporting was poor, and evidence of unfamiliarity with international guidelines was evident (i.e. absence of incremental analysis, of discounting long-term costs and effects). Analysis or description of place-to-place variability was infrequent. Of the 49 trial-based analyses, 43% were single centre, 33% multinational and 18% multicentre national. Main reporting problems included issues related to sample representativeness, data collection and data analysis. Of the 32 model-based studies (most commonly using epidemiological models), main problems included the inadequacy of search strategy, range selection for sensitivity analysis and theoretical justifications. There are a number of issues associated with the reporting and methodology used in multinational and local HEE studies relevant for LAC that preclude the assessment of their generalizability and potential transferability. Although the quality of reporting and methodology used in model-based HEEs was somewhat higher than those from trial-based HEEs, economic evaluation methodology was usually weak and less developed than the analysis of clinical data. Improving these aspects in LAC HEE studies is paramount to maximizing their potential benefits such as increasing the generalizability/transferability of their results.

Bayesian modelling of healthcare resource use in multinational randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Most cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside multinational randomized clinical trials (RCT) are carried out applying the unit costs from the country of interest to trial-wide resource use items with the objective of estimating total healthcare costs by treatment group. However, this approach could confound 'price effects' with 'country effects'. An alternative approach is to use multilevel modelling techniques to analyse healthcare resource use (HCRU) from the trial, and obtain country-specific total costs by applying country-specific unit costs to corresponding shrinkage estimates of differential HCRU.

METHODS

To illustrate the feasibility of this approach, we analysed data from twin multinational RCTs, which enrolled approximately 2000 individuals into three treatment arms for the management of patients with chronic respiratory disease. The models were implemented using Bayesian multilevel models, to reflect the hierarchical structure of the data while controlling for co-variates at the patient and country level.

RESULTS

This analysis showed that directly modelling the level of HCRU is a promising approach to facilitate cost-effectiveness analyses conducted alongside multinational RCTs, offering several advantages compared with the modelling of direct costs.

CONCLUSIONS

It is argued that modelling the level of HCRU within the Bayesian framework avoids confounding the price effects with the country effects and facilitates the estimation of costs for several countries represented in the trial.

Transferability of economic evaluations of medical technologies: a new technology for orthopedic surgery

Transferring results of economic evaluations across countries or jurisdictions can potentially save scarce evaluation resources while helping to make market access and reimbursement decisions in a timely fashion. This article points out why transferring results of economic evaluations is particularly important in the field of medical technologies. It then provides an overview of factors that are previously identified in the literature as affecting transferability of economic evaluations, as well as methods for transferring results in a scientifically sound way. As the current literature almost exclusively relates to transferability of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, this article highlights those factors and methodologies that are of particular relevance to transferring medical technology assessments. Considering the state-of-the-art literature and a worked, real life, example of transferring an economic evaluation of a product used in orthopedic surgery, we provide recommendations for future work in this important area of medical technology assessment.

Escitalopram and duloxetine in major depressive disorder: a pharmacoeconomic comparison using UK cost data

BACKGROUND

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The allosteric SSRI escitalopram has been shown to be at least as clinically effective as the SNRIs venlafaxine and duloxetine in MDD, with a better tolerability profile. In addition, escitalopram has been shown to be cost saving compared with venlafaxine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus duloxetine in the treatment of MDD, and to identify key cost drivers.

METHODS

The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was conducted alongside a 24-week, double-blind, multinational randomized study (escitalopram 20 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day) in outpatients with MDD, aged 18-65 years, with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score >or=26 and Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) score >or=4, and baseline duration of the current depressive episode of 12 weeks to 1 year.The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS), which included all patients with >or=1 valid post-baseline health economic assessment. Effectiveness outcomes of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) included the change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score (primary CEA), treatment response (MADRS score decrease >or=50%) and remission (MADRS score <or=12) rates at week 24. Cost outcomes were assessed from the societal perspective. Healthcare resource use and sick leave were evaluated using a health economic assessment questionnaire. Unit costs of healthcare services were obtained from standard UK sources ( pound, year 2006 values).

RESULTS

Over the total 24-week study period, escitalopram was associated with significant cost savings compared with duloxetine (total per-patient monthly cost pound 188 vs pound 334, respectively). In the primary CEA, escitalopram dominated duloxetine (i.e. was more effective on the disability scale and less costly). Treatment with escitalopram resulted in significantly lower mean sick leave duration per patient over 24 weeks than duloxetine (30.7 days vs 62.2 days).In multivariate analyses, escitalopram as a treatment choice was associated with a 54% reduction in sick leave duration (p < 0.001). Treatment with escitalopram also resulted in 49% lower total costs than treatment with duloxetine (p = 0.002). Absenteeism accounted for about two-thirds of the overall cost. Early clinical improvement (mean change in MADRS total score, response and remission) had an independent significant impact on the sick leave duration, after controlling for key co-variates.

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was associated with significantly lower duration of sick leave and significant savings in the total cost compared with duloxetine; it dominated duloxetine when effectiveness was assessed on the SDS scale. Indirect costs due to sick leave accounted for the most substantial portion of the total cost and should, therefore, be an important consideration when pharmacoeconomic comparisons between treatments are made from the societal perspective. The link between decrease in absenteeism and early (8-week) clinical improvement suggested in the additional analyses may explain the reduced sick leave observed with escitalopram, given its superior short-term efficacy compared with duloxetine (demonstrated in the underlying clinical trial).

Pharmaco-economic issues for diabetes therapy

A systematic review was undertaken to analyse pharmaco-economic issues in diabetes, with evidence selected on the basis of relevance and immediacy. Pharmaco-economics in diabetes primarily relates to making choices about antidiabetic pharmaceuticals, and this is being influenced by global trends. Trends include increasing numbers of patients with diabetes, with increasing costs of caring for people with diabetes, and an ever-present focus on the costs of pharmaceuticals which are predicted to increase as the pace of development of new medications parallels the increasing incidence of the condition. These developments have influenced the demand for health care in diabetes in the last decade, and will continue to determine this in the coming decade. Recent national experiences are cited to illustrate current issues and to focus specifically upon the challenges facing a raft of new diabetes treatment options now hitting the marketplace, although supported by fewer completed long-term trials. It can be anticipated that these newer agents will be appraised for their cost-effectiveness or value for money. Economic analyses for some of the new technologies are summarized; in general, the peer-reviewed publications using well-accepted and validated models have reported that these technologies are cost-effective. Endorsement of any technology in a national setting is not awarded simply because the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) falls below the threshold regarded as value for money. In most national observations the reviewers expressed concerns about assumptions used in economic modelling which resulted in the ICERs being deemed optimistic at best, generally highly uncertain, and resulting in the cost-effectiveness appearing better than it really would be in clinical practice. This has often led to the authorities concluding that the price advantage of new technologies over comparators could not be justified, essentially leading to restrictions in use compared to their licence. In general, a paucity of robust evidence on longer-term outcome data together with a lack of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data collected in a reliable manner in appropriate patients and amenable to utility (and hence quality adjusted life year or QALY) estimation have resulted in problems for these new drugs at the so-called fourth (cost-effectiveness) hurdle. In the light of these findings, the implications for generating credible fit-for-purpose cost-effectiveness analyses of new technologies in diabetes are discussed. Throughout this chapter, the interested reader is referred to a number of excellent review articles for further details.

Self-measurement of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes: a health economic assessment

BACKGROUND

The clinical role and the potential benefit of self-measurement of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes are still under discussion. Even less information is available on the cost-effectiveness of performing SMBG by this patient group. The goal of this study was to establish cost-effectiveness ratios of performing SMBG by patients afflicted by this disease.

METHODS

We assessed the benefit and cost-effectiveness of SMBG in type 2 diabetes from a third-party payer perspective based on results of both a large epidemiologic cohort study reflecting the reality of care, and a Markov model calculation.

RESULTS

Analysis of cohort study data revealed that total costs cumulated over the observation period of 8 years were lower in the SMBG group than in the non-SMBG group according to savings of euro 1'714 [oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) only] and euro 13'815 (OAD + insulin) per patient. Several scenarios were considered in the model-based calculation. The cost-effectiveness ratio varied from euro 20'768/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD treated patients and from euro 59'057/life year gained to domination of SMBG use compared to nonusers in OAD + insulin treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that SMBG in type 2 diabetes offers an excellent opportunity to get a high investment-outcome ratio in the treatment of this pandemic disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis using data from multinational trials: the use of bivariate hierarchical modeling

Health care cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) often uses individual patient data (IPD) from multinational randomized controlled trials. Although designed to account for between-patient sampling variability in the clinical and economic data, standard analytical approaches to CEA ignore the presence of between-location variability in the study results. This is a restrictive limitation given that countries often differ in factors that could affect the results of CEAs, such as the availability of health care resources, their unit costs, clinical practice, and patient case mix. The authors advocate the use of Bayesian bivariate hierarchical modeling to analyze multinational cost-effectiveness data. This analytical framework explicitly recognizes that patient-level costs and outcomes are nested within countries. Using real-life data, the authors illustrate how the proposed methods can be applied to obtain (a) more appropriate estimates of overall cost-effectiveness and associated measure of sampling uncertainty compared to standard CEA and (b) country-specific cost-effectiveness estimates that can be used to assess the between-location variability of the study results while controlling for differences in country-specific and patient-specific characteristics. It is demonstrated that results from standard CEA using IPD from multinational trials display a large degree of variability across the 17 countries included in the analysis, producing potentially misleading results. In contrast, "shrinkage estimates'' obtained from the modeling approach proposed here facilitate the appropriate quantification of country-specific cost-effectiveness estimates while weighting the results based on the level of information available within each country. The authors suggest that the methods presented here represent a general framework for the analysis of economic data collected from different locations.

Assessing generalisability in model-based economic evaluation studies: a structured review in osteoporosis

To support decision making, many countries have now introduced some formal assessment process to evaluate whether health technologies represent good 'value for money'. These often take the form of decision models that can be used to explore elements of importance to generalisability of study results across clinical settings and jurisdictions. The objective of this review was to assess whether articles reporting decision-analytic models in the area of osteoporosis provided enough information to enable decision makers in different countries/jurisdictions to fully appreciate the variability of results according to location and be able to apply the evaluation to their own setting. Of the 18 articles included in the review, only three explicitly stated the decision-making audience. It was not possible to infer a decision-making audience in eight studies. The target population was well reported, as were resource and cost data, and clinical data used for estimates of relative risk reduction. However, baseline risk was rarely adapted to the relevant jurisdiction, and when no decision maker was explicit it was difficult to assess whether the reported cost and resource use data were in fact relevant. A few studies used sensitivity analysis to explore elements of generalisability, such as compliance rates and baseline fracture risk rates, although such analyses were generally restricted to evaluating parameter uncertainty. This review found that variability in cost effectiveness across locations is addressed to a varying extent in modelling studies in the field of osteoporosis, limiting their use for decision makers across different locations. Transparency of reporting is expected to increase as methodology develops and decision makers publish 'reference case' type guidance.

Analysis sans frontières: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions?

Over the last decade or so, a number of healthcare systems have used economic evaluations as a formal input into decisions about the coverage or reimbursement of new healthcare interventions. This change in the policy landscape has placed some important demands on the design and characteristics of economic evaluation and these are increasingly evident in studies being presented to decision makers. One challenge has been to make studies specific to the context in which the decision is being taken. This is because of the inevitable geographical variation in many of the parameters within an analysis. There has been a series of important contributions to the published literature in recent years on how to quantify geographical heterogeneity within economic analyses based on randomised controlled trials. However, there are good reasons for economic evaluation for decision making to be undertaken using methods of evidence synthesis and decision analytical modelling, but issues of geographical variation still need to be handled appropriately. The key requirements of economic evaluations for decision making within healthcare systems can be defined as follows: (i) a design that meets the objectives and constraints of the healthcare system; (ii) coherent and complete specification of the decision problem; (iii) inclusion of all relevant evidence; and (iv) recognition and appropriate handling of uncertainty. In satisfying these requirements, it is important to be aware of variation between jurisdictions, and this imposes some important analytical requirements on economic studies. While many agencies have produced guidelines on preferred methods for healthcare economic evaluation, these exhibit considerable variation. Some of this variation can be justified by genuine differences between systems in clinical practice, objectives and constraints, while some of the variation relates to differences of opinion about appropriate analysis given methodological uncertainty. However, some of the variation in guidance is difficult to justify and is inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the systems the analyses are seeking to inform. Decision makers and analysts need to work together to streamline and where possible harmonise guidelines on methods for economic evaluations, whilst recognising legitimate variation in the needs of different healthcare systems. Otherwise, there is the risk that scarce resources will be wasted in producing country-specific analyses in situations where these are not justified. Expected value of information analyses are also emerging as a tool that could be considered by decision makers to guide their policy on the acceptance or non-acceptance of data from other jurisdictions.

Telomere dynamics unique to meiotic prophase: formation and significance of the bouquet

Telomeres carry out conserved and possibly ancient functions in meiosis. During the specialized prophase of meiosis I, meiotic prophase, telomeres cluster on the nuclear envelope and move the diploid genetic material around within the nucleus so that homologous chromosomes can align two by two and efficiently recombine with precision. This recombination is in turn required for proper segregation of the homologs into viable haploid daughter cells. The meiosis-specific telomere clustering on the nuclear envelope defines the bouquet stage, so named for its resemblance to the stems from a bouquet of cut flowers. Here, a comparative analysis of the literature on meiotic telomeres from a variety of different species illustrates that the bouquet is nearly universal among life cycles with sexual reproduction. The bouquet has been well documented for over 100 years, but our understanding of how it forms and how it functions has only recently begun to increase. Early and recent observations document the timing and provide clues about the functional significance of these striking telomere movements.