Correction to: Perspective and Costing in Cost‑Effectiveness Analysis, 1974-2018

Health and economic effects of introducing single-dose or two-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is a major public health problem in India, where access to prevention programmes is low. The WHO-Strategic Advisory Group of Experts recently updated their recommendation for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to include a single-dose option in addition to the two-dose option, which could make HPV vaccination programmes easier to implement and more affordable.

METHODS

We combined projections from a type-specific HPV transmission model and a cancer progression model to assess the health and economic effects of HPV vaccination at national and state level in India. The models used national and state-specific Indian demographic, epidemiological and cost data, and single-dose vaccine efficacy and immunogenicity data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer India vaccine trial with 10-year follow-up. We compared single-dose and two-dose HPV vaccination for a range of plausible scenarios regarding single-dose vaccine protection, coverage and catch-up. We used a healthcare sector payer perspective with a time horizon of 100 years.

RESULTS

Under the base-case scenario of lifelong protection of single-dose vaccination in 10-year-old girls with 90% coverage, the discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nationwide vaccination relative to no vaccination was US$406 (₹INR30 000) per DALY (disability-adjusted life-years) averted. This lay below an opportunity-cost-based threshold of 30% Indian gross domestic product per capita in each Indian state (state-specific ICER range: US$67-US$593 per DALY averted). The ICER of two-dose vaccination versus no vaccination vaccination was US$1404 (₹INR104 000). The ICER of two-dose vaccination versus single-dose vaccination, assuming lower initial efficacy and waning of single-dose vaccination, was at least US$2282 (₹INR169 000) per DALY averted.

CONCLUSIONS

Nationwide introduction of single-dose HPV vaccination at age 10 in India is highly likely to be cost-effective whereas extending the number of doses from one to two would have a less favourable profile.

Analyses of the return on investment of public health interventions: a scoping review and recommendations for future studies

Return on investment (ROI) analysis is increasingly being used for evaluating the value for money of public health interventions. Given its potential role for informing health policies, it is important that there is a more comprehensive understanding of ROI analysis within the global health field. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted a scoping review of recent research articles reporting an ROI metric for a health intervention within the public sector in any country setting. The database search was limited to literature published in English and studies published between 1 January 2018 and 14 June 2021. Uses and settings where the ROI metric is being applied, key methodological features of the calculations and the types of economic benefits included were extracted. 118 relevant studies were included within this scoping review. We found that ROI analyses of health interventions differed between those that only included fiscal savings (such as prevented medical expenses) and those which incorporated a wider range of benefits (such as monetised health benefits). This highlights the variation in the definition of ROI analyses and supports the finding that ROI analyses are used for a range of different research questions/purposes within the healthcare sector. We also found that the methodologies used in ROI calculations were inconsistent and often poorly reported. This review demonstrates that there is notable variation in the methodology surrounding recent ROI calculations of healthcare interventions, as well as the definition of ROI analysis. We recommend that ROI metrics should be carefully interpreted before they are used to inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of healthcare resources. To improve the consistency of future studies, we also set out recommended use cases for ROI analysis and a reporting checklist.

Gene Therapy Evidence Generation and Economic Analysis: Pragmatic Considerations to Facilitate Fit-for-Purpose Health Technology Assessment

Gene therapies (GTs) are considered to be a paradigm-shifting class of treatments with the potential to treat previously incurable diseases or those with significant unmet treatment needs. However, considerable challenges remain in their health technology assessment (HTA), mainly stemming from the inability to perform robust clinical trials to convince decision-makers to pay the high prices for the potential long-term treatment benefits provided. This article aims to review the recommendations that have been published for evidence generation and economic analysis for GTs against the feasibility of their implementation within current HTA decision analysis frameworks. After reviewing the systematically identified literature, we found that questions remain on the appropriateness of GT evidence generation, considering that additional, broader values brought by GTs seem insufficiently incorporated within proposed analytic methods. In cases where innovative methods are proposed, HTA organizations remain highly conservative and resistant to change their reference case and decision analysis framework. Such resistances are largely attributed to the substantial evidence uncertainty, resource-consuming administration process, and the absence of consensus on the optimized methodology to balance all the advantages and potential pitfalls of GTs.

The cost-effectiveness of treatments for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review

Economic evaluations can help decision makers identify what services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders provide best value-for-money. The aim of this paper is to review the best available economic evidence to support decision making for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of ADHD and ASD interventions including studies published 2010-2020, identified through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and consequences were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. We identified ten studies of moderate-to-good quality on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for ADHD and two studies of good quality of interventions for ASD. The majority of ADHD studies evaluated pharmacotherapy (n = 8), and two investigated the economic value of psychosocial/behavioral interventions. Both economic evaluations for ASD investigated early and communication interventions. Included studies support the cost-effectiveness of behavioral parenting interventions for younger children with ADHD. Among pharmacotherapies for ADHD, different combinations of stimulant/non-stimulant medications for children were cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds reported in the original papers. Early intervention for children with suspected ASD was cost-effective, but communication-focused therapy for preschool children with ASD was not. Prioritizing more studies in this area would allow decision makers to promote cost-effective and clinically effective interventions for this target group.

A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available.

METHODS

A lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives.

RESULTS

Viewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective.

CONCLUSION

Effective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.