Is the Choice of Cost-Effectiveness Threshold in Cost-Utility Analysis Endogenous to the Resulting Value of Technology? A Systematic Review

Cost-Effectiveness of Parathyroid Cryopreservation and Autotransplantation

Importance

Delayed autotransplantation of cryopreserved parathyroid tissue (DACP) is the only surgical treatment for permanent postoperative hypoparathyroidism. Studies suggest that only a small minority of cryopreserved samples are ultimately autotransplanted with highly variable outcomes. For these reasons, many have questioned the economic utility of the process, although, to the authors' knowledge, this has never been formally studied.

Objective

To report the clinical outcomes of parathyroid cryopreservation and DACP at a large academic institution and to determine the cost-effectiveness of this treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An institutional review board-approved, retrospective review of patients at a single institution who underwent DACP over a 17-year period was conducted with a median follow-up of 48.2 months. A forward-looking cost-utility analysis was then performed to determine the economic utility of cryopreservation/DACP vs usual care (monitoring and supplementation). Patients who had parathyroid tissue in cryopreserved storage between August 2005 to September 2022 at a single-center, academic, quaternary care center were identified.

Exposure

Parathyroid cryopreservation and DACP.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Graft functionality, clinical outcomes, and cost utility using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results

A total of 591 patients underwent cryopreservation. Of these, 10 patients (1.7%; mean [SD] age, 45.6 [17.9] years; 6 male [60%]) underwent DACP. A minority of autografts (2 [20%]) were subsequently fully functional, one-half (5 [50%]) were partially functional, and 3 (30%) were not functional. The cost-utility model estimated that at a large academic center over 10 years, the additional cost of 591 patients undergoing cryopreservation and 10 patients undergoing autotransplantation would be $618 791.64 (2022 dollars) and would add 8.75 QALYs, resulting in a cost per marginal QALY of $70 719.04, which is less than the common willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY.

Conclusions and Relevance

The reimplantation rate of cryopreserved tissue was low (<2%), but when implanted, autografts were at least partially functional 70% of the time. In the first-ever, to the authors' knowledge, formal cost analysis for this treatment, results of the current model suggest that cryopreservation and autotransplantation were cost-effective compared with the usual care for hypoparathyroidism at a large, academic institution. It is recommended that each surgical center consider whether the economic and logistical commitments necessary for cryopreservation are worthwhile for their individual needs.

Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve, which is the best lifetime option for an 18-year-old? A decision analysis

Objectives

Identifying the optimal solution for young adults requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) is challenging, given the variety of options and their lifetime complication risks, impacts on quality of life, and costs. Decision analytic techniques make comparisons incorporating these measures. We evaluated lifetime valve-related outcomes of mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) versus the Ross procedure (Ross) using decision tree microsimulations modeling.

Methods

Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs derived from published reports were entered into a Markov model decision tree to explore progression between health states for hypothetical 18-year-old patients. In total, 20,000 Monte Carlo microsimulations were performed to model mortality, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), and health care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses was performed to identify transition probabilities at which the preferred strategy switched from baseline.

Results

From modeling, average 20-year mortality was 16.3% and 23.2% for Ross and mAVR, respectively. Average 20-year freedom from stroke and major bleeding was 98.6% and 94.6% for Ross, and 90.0% and 82.2% for mAVR, respectively. Average individual lifetime (60 postoperative years) utility (28.3 vs 23.5 QALYs) and cost ($54,233 vs $507,240) favored Ross over mAVR. The average ICER demonstrated that each QALY would cost $95,345 more for mAVR. Sensitivity analysis revealed late annual probabilities of autograft/left ventricular outflow tract disease and homograft/right ventricular outflow tract disease after Ross, and late death after mAVR, to be important ICER determinants.

Conclusions

Our modeling suggests that Ross is preferred to mAVR, with superior freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality, and improved cost-utility for young adults requiring aortic valve surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process.

FINDINGS

Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Basics of health economics for clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma

With the rise in global healthcare spending, medical decision-making is increasingly based on health economics outcomes. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA), including their advantages and limitations, and outline practical aspects for implementing health economics in clinical trials for orthopaedic trauma. Both CEA and CUA offer several advantages. Firstly, they consider the costs as well as benefits of an intervention, providing a more comprehensive picture of its economic impact. Secondly, they provide a clear and straightforward metric for comparing interventions, which can help decision-makers make informed choices. However, there are methodological shortcomings that must be acknowledged, such as the lack of standardized instruments for assessing health utility measures, which can result in a wide range of cost-benefit ratios. In addition, a consensus on the willingness-to-pay threshold still needs to be reached to develop decision rules for cost-effectiveness similar to clinical effectiveness. Methods such as CEA and CUA should be incorporated into clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma research. Practical aspects for this include planning in advance, preferably in cooperation with a health economist. Selecting appropriate outcome measures is crucial, and both the medical effects of interventions and quality of life instruments should be carefully chosen to ensure comparability with previous studies. Additionally, the potential impact on clinical practice and healthcare policies should be considered. Direct as well as indirect costs should be assessed, and quality assurance with well-established checklists should be confirmed.

Factors associated with the author-reported cost-effectiveness threshold in high-income countries: systematic review and multivariable modelling

OBJECTIVE

The cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) is a key parameter to guide objective reimbursement decisions, yet very few countries have defined a reference CET, and there is no reference method for defining it. Our objective was to determine the factors explaining the author-reported CETs in the literature.

METHODS

Our systematic review targeted original articles referenced in EMBASE and published between 2010 and 2021. Selected studies had to use Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY), and being conducted in high-income countries. Our explanatory variables were: estimated cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), region of the world, source of funding, type of intervention, disease, year of publication, justification of the author-reported Cost-Effectiveness Threshold (ar-CET), economic perspective, and declaration of interest. Multivariable linear regression models implemented on R software were used, guided by a Directed Acyclic Graph.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty four studies were included. The mean ar-CET was €63,338/QALY (standard deviation (SD) 34,965) overall, and €37,748/QALY (SD 20,750) in studies conducted in the British Commonwealth. The ar-CET increased slightly with the ICER (+ 66€/QALY for each additional 10,000€/QALY in the ICER, 95% confidence interval (IC) [31-102], p < 0.001), was higher in the United States (+ 36,225€/QALY; IC [25,582; 46,869]) and Europe (+ 10,352€/QALY; IC [72; 20,631]) compared to the British Commonwealth (p < 0.001), and was higher when the ar-CET was not defined a priori (+ 22,393€/QALY; [5809; 38,876]) compared to state recommendations defined ar-CET (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline the virtuous role of state recommendations in the choice of a low and homogeneous CET. We also highlight the need to integrate the a priori justification of the CET into good publishing guidelines.

Are Estimates of the Health Opportunity Cost Being Used to Draw Conclusions in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses? A Scoping Review in Four Countries

BACKGROUND

When healthcare budgets are exogenous, cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) used to inform funding decisions should represent the health opportunity cost (HOC) of such funding decisions, but HOC-based CET estimates have not been available until recently. In recent years, empirical HOC-based CETs for multiple countries have been published, but the use of these CETs in the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature has not been investigated. Analysis of the use of HOC-based CETs by researchers undertaking CEAs in countries with different decision-making contexts will provide valuable insights to further understand barriers and facilitators to the acceptance and use of HOC-based CETs.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify the CET values used to interpret the results of CEAs published in the scientific literature before and after the publication of jurisdiction-specific empirical HOC-based CETs in four countries.

METHODS

We undertook a scoping review of CEAs published in Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and South Africa between 2016 (2014 in Spain) and 2020. CETs used before and after publication of HOC estimates were recorded. We conducted logit regressions exploring factors explaining the use of HOC values in identified studies and linear models exploring the association of the reported CET value with study characteristics and results.

RESULTS

1171 studies were included in this review (870 CEAs and 301 study protocols). HOC values were cited in 28% of CEAs in Spain and in 11% of studies conducted in Australia, but they were not referred to in CEAs undertaken in the Netherlands and South Africa. Regression analyses on Spanish and Australian studies indicate that more recent studies, studies without a conflict of interest and studies estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the HOC value were more likely to use the HOC as a threshold reference. In addition, we found a small but significant impact indicating that for every dollar increase in the estimated ICER, the reported CET increased by US$0.015. Based on the findings of our review, we discuss the potential factors that might explain the lack of adoption of HOC-based CETs in the empirical CEA literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of HOC-based CETs by identified published CEAs has been uneven across the four analysed countries, most likely due to underlying differences in their decision-making processes. Our results also reinforce a previous finding indicating that CETs might be endogenously selected to fit authors' conclusions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Population Screening Programs for Cardiovascular Diseases and Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Almost all low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have instated a program to control and manage non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Population screening is an integral component of this strategy and requires a substantial chunk of investment. Therefore, testing the screening program for economic along with clinical effectiveness is essential. There is significant proof of the benefits of incorporating economic evidence in health decision-making globally, although evidence from LMICs in NCD prevention is scanty. This systematic review aims to consolidate and synthesize economic evidence of screening programs for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes from LMICs. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021275806). The review includes articles from English and Chinese languages. An initial search retrieved a total of 2,644 potentially relevant publications. Finally, 15 articles (13 English and 2 Chinese reports) were included and scrutinized in detail. We found 6 economic evaluations of interventions targeting cardiovascular diseases, 5 evaluations of diabetes interventions, and 4 were combined interventions, i.e., screening of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. The study showcases numerous innovative screening programs that have been piloted, such as using mobile technology for screening, integrating non-communicable disease screening with existing communicable disease screening programs, and using community health workers for screening. Our review reveals that context is of utmost importance while considering any intervention, i.e., depending on the available resources, cost-effectiveness may vary—screening programs can be made universal or targeted just for the high-risk population.

Cost-Effectiveness Threshold for Healthcare: Justification and Quantification

Every public health expenditure, including the one that saves lives or extends life expectancy of particular persons (target population), bears a cost. Although cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is routinely performed in health policy, ethical justification of CEA is rarely discussed. Also, there is neither consensus value nor even consensus method for determining cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) for life-extending measures. In this study, we performed ethical analysis of CEA by policy impact assessment based on connection of health and wealth (poorer people have statistically shorter life expectancies) and concluded that CEA is not only a practical but also an ethical necessity. To quantify CET, we used three independent methods: (1) literature survey of analyzing salaries in risky occupations, (2) utilizing Prospect Theory suggesting that people value their lives in monetary terms twice more than their lifetime earnings, and (3) literature survey of the U.S. current legal practice. To the best of our knowledge, nobody applied method (2) to determine CET. The three methods yielded rather similar results with CET about 1.0 ± 0.4 gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) per quality-adjusted life-year. Therefore, a sum of not higher than 140% GDPpc is statistically sufficient to “purchase” an additional year of life—or, alternatively, to “rob” one year of life if taken away. Therefore, 140% GDP per capita per quality-adjusted life-year should be considered as the upper limit of prudent and ethically justified expenditure on life extension programs.

Understanding cost-utility analysis studies in the trauma and orthopaedic surgery literature

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies are becoming increasingly important due to the need to reduce healthcare spending, especially in the field of trauma and orthopaedics.

There is an increasing need for trauma and orthopaedic surgeons to understand these economic evaluations to ensure informed cost-effective decisions can be made to benefit the patient and funding body.

This review discusses the fundamental principles required to understand CUA studies in the literature, including a discussion of the different methods employed to assess the health outcomes associated with different management options and the various approaches used to calculate the costs involved.

Different types of model design may be used to conduct a CUA which can be broadly categorized into real-life clinical studies and computer-simulated modelling. We discuss the main types of study designs used within each category. We also cover the different types of sensitivity analysis used to quantify uncertainty in these studies and the commonly employed instruments used to assess the quality of CUAs. Finally, we discuss some of the important limitations of CUAs that need to be considered.

This review outlines the main concepts required to understand the CUA literature and provides a basic framework for their future conduct.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:305-315. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200115

A Health Opportunity Cost Threshold for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool for informing treatment coverage and pricing decisions, yet no consensus exists about what threshold for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained indicates whether treatments are likely to be cost-effective in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate a U.S. cost-effectiveness threshold based on health opportunity costs.

DESIGN

Simulation of short-term mortality and morbidity attributable to persons dropping health insurance due to increased health care expenditures passed though as premium increases. Model inputs came from demographic data and the literature; 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) were constructed.

SETTING

Population-based.

PARTICIPANTS

Simulated cohort of 100 000 individuals from the U.S. population with direct-purchase private health insurance.

MEASUREMENTS

Number of persons dropping insurance coverage, number of additional deaths, and QALYs lost from increased mortality and morbidity, all per increase of $10 000 000 (2019 U.S. dollars) in population treatment cost.

RESULTS

Per $10 000 000 increase in health care expenditures, 1860 persons (95% UI, 1080 to 2840 persons) were simulated to become uninsured, causing 5 deaths (UI, 3 to 11 deaths), 81 QALYs (UI, 40 to 170 QALYs) lost due to death, and 15 QALYs (UI, 6 to 32 QALYs) lost due to illness; this implies a cost-effectiveness threshold of $104 000 per QALY (UI, $51 000 to $209 000 per QALY) in 2019 U.S. dollars. Given available evidence, there is about 14% probability that the threshold exceeds $150 000 per QALY and about 48% probability that it lies below $100 000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates were sensitive to inputs, most notably the effects of losing insurance on mortality and of premium increases on becoming uninsured. Health opportunity costs may vary by population. Nonhealth opportunity costs were excluded.

CONCLUSION

Given current evidence, treatments with ICERs above the range $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY are unlikely to be cost-effective in the United States.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Differential independent impact of the intraoperative use of navigation and angled endoscopes on the surgical outcome of endonasal endoscopy for pituitary tumors: a prospective study

Despite widespread popularity of navigation and angled endoscopes in endonasal endoscopy, there are hardly few studies on their efficacy with the extent of resection or retreatment. This is probably the first study to assess the independent impact of these adjuncts among pituitary tumors. Patients with pituitary tumors undergoing endonasal endoscopy were prospectively studied for their demographics, clinico-radiological features, intraoperative use of navigation, and angled endoscopes, in relation to gross total resection (GTR), near total resection (NTR), endocrine remission, and retreatment. Pertinent statistical analyses were performed. Among a total of 139 patients, navigation and angled endoscopes could be used in 54 and 48 patients, respectively, depending upon their availability rather than chosen as per the case. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics in relation to their use. The surgeon's perception of immediate benefit was noted among 51.9% while using navigation. The use of angled endoscopes towards the end of resection could help with additional tumor removal in 62.5% of patients. Overall, the use of navigation resulted in a significantly higher GTR (80.8% vs. 59.7%, OR 2.83, p = 0.01), a higher GTR/NTR (86.5% vs. 70.8%, OR 2.65, p = 0.04), and a lower retreatment rate (7.7% vs. 20.8%, OR 3.15, p = 0.05) than the others. In functioning tumors with cavernous sinus invasion, navigation had significantly increased remission rates (69.2% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). The use of angled endoscopes yielded a significantly higher GTR/NTR (91.7% vs. 70.6%, p = 0.04) and a lower retreatment rate (0% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.05) among only non-functioning adenomas. In multivariate analyses, the use of neuronavigation had a significant association with both GTR and retreatment rates (p values 0.005 and 0.02 respectively), independent of other confounding factors. The elective intraoperative use of navigation has a significant independent impact on the extent of resection and retreatment overall. While navigation results in better remission rates among functioning tumors with cavernous sinus invasion, angled endoscopy has a significant association with surgical outcomes in non-functioning tumors.