The cost of a QALY

Beyond QALYs and DALYs: factoring in the well-being effects of dietary supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids in dry eye syndrome

Purpose

This study aims to explore the use and relevance of WALYs (well-being-adjusted life years) in light of the utilitarian premises of neoclassical economics that continue to dominate health outcomes evaluation. QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) and DALYs (disability-adjusted life years) measure longevity and quality of life in terms of purely health-related aspects and outcomes of medical interventions. However, evaluative questions of subjective well-being may be equally important in comparing outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Design/methodology/approach

A two-phase online search strategy for refereed research on dry eye treatment with omega-3 fatty acids (omega-3s) was adopted. Phase I aimed to identify and contrast clinical parameters of efficacy in omega-3 dietary supplementation. Phase II aimed to find a preference-based, multi-attribute utility instrument specific and sensitive enough to dry eye and its consequences on patients’ subjective well-being. We then illustrate how WALYs can be conceptualized and calculated based on the search results.

Findings

Empiric therapies like omega-3s can be assessed in terms of reducing or relieving symptomatic discomfort and pain, and enabling the patient to enjoy life and derive satisfaction from daily activities. We find in VisQoL (Vision and Quality of Life Index) a viable alternative to conventional multi-attribute utility instruments, including those typically used in QALY and DALY calculations. Clinical efficacy indices of dry eye can be linked to VisQoL’s quality of life dimensions. Differently weighted outcomes can be aggregated. And WALYs per patient per year can be computed by scaling aggregated outcomes to match the WALY rating scale. The implications of subjective well-being for both patient and society can thus be approached from a broader and richer perspective.

Originality/value

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind in pharmaceutical outcomes valuation and marketing. It offers a framework for analyzing life satisfaction and well-being among dry eye patients under treatment. It is also the first to use and adapt a multi-attribute utility measure to treatment outcomes of omega-3s in ocular diseases, from which this study suggests WALYs may be computed. However, it does not suggest that WALYs should supplant QALYs and DALYs in evaluating health outcomes. Medical economics is enriched if alternative methods of outcomes evaluations can help fill in the gaps in existing paradigms and do so by accounting for other effects of condition-specific interventions. Costs and benefits of interventions to the individual and society can then be valued not just more effectively, but also more equitably.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening of asymptomatic healthcare workers in a low-prevalence setting: A single-center UK cohort study

In this cohort study of UK healthcare workers, we evaluated the use of fortnightly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening to facilitate the safe resumption of elective surgery in a low-prevalence setting. We found that adherence to serial testing was poor, and the resource required to identify 1 asymptomatic case was substantial.

The effect of carpal tunnel release on health-related quality of life of 2346 patients over a 5-year period

In this prospective cohort study, the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from a societal perspective of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) patients was determined and compared with other diseases. In addition, the effect of carpal tunnel release (CTR) was analysed 6 weeks postoperatively with regard to mean EQ-5D index value improvement, side-effects of surgery and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We found a baseline mean EQ-5D index value of 0.75 (SD: 0.23), comparable with values seen in other disease like breast cancer, diabetes and asthma. Furthermore, we found that CTR improved HRQoL substantially 6 weeks postoperatively (mean + 0.12, SD: 0.22) and significantly reduced symptom reporting (mean -52%, SD: 53) with a cost per QALY gained of €396.05. In conclusion, CTS has a comparable impact on quality of life as compared with other diseases, and CTR has the potential to substantially improve patient's HRQoL at a fairly modest cost.Level of evidence: III.

Efficacy of modified bevacizumab-XELOX therapy in Japanese patients with stage IV recurrent or non-resectable colorectal cancer

Background

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has been conducted for patients with non-resectable colorectal cancer; however, few reports of a systematic approach to NAC exist. At our hospital, bevacizumab with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (B-mab XELOX) has been used as chemotherapy for Stage IV colorectal cancer since 2014. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NAC with a molecular-targeting agent for Stage IV colorectal cancer.

Methods

A retrospective, single-institute analysis was performed including 27 patients with advanced recurrent cancer following primary tumor resection and 43 patients with non-resectable tumors and remote metastasis. At the time of resection, 17 were receiving chemotherapy. All 70 patients received at least 3 cycles of B-mab XELOX (total: 920 cycles). We determined the 1-year progression-free survival (1Y-PFS), 1-year overall survival (1Y-OS), 3Y-PFS, 3Y-OS, and number of treatment cycles. The objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and adverse events were assessed. The number of chemotherapy cycles, survival time, and R0 surgery rate were determined for patients who underwent RO conversion surgery.

Results

The 1Y-PFS was 28.5% [median survival time (MST): 7.4 months], 1Y-OS was 76.6% (MST not reached), 3Y-PFS was 5.5% (MST: 7.4 months), and 3Y-OS was 26.4% (MST: 25.2 months). The mean and median number of cycles of B-mab XELOX was 13.1 and 10.5, respectively. The objective response rate was 28.6%, and the clinical benefit rate was 58.6%. Grade 1 or Grade 2 adverse events occurred in 60 patients (85.7%); however, they all resolved without intervention. A single Grade 4 event (perforation of the primary tumor) occurred in 1 patient (1.4%). RO conversion surgery was performed in 7 patients (10.0%; primary + liver in 2 patients, primary + lung in 1 patient, liver in 3 patients, and primary in 1 patient). These patients received 3 to 10 cycles preoperatively (mean: 7.3; median: 6.5). R0 surgery was achieved in 5 of the 7 patients (71.4%). Postoperative survival ranged from 1 to 26 months (MST: 8 months).

Conclusions

This modified regimen was safe and effective in Japanese patients, and a high quality of life/quality-adjusted life-year was achieved. To further evaluate PFS and OS, more patients are being investigated.

Cost-Effectiveness for Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is significantly more cost-effective than nonsurgical management in patients who have failed to improve with a 6-week trial of nonsurgical management. Decompression plus fusion becomes more cost-effective compared with decompression alone at 2 years following surgery. Further study is needed to evaluate the most cost-effective fusion approach and augmentation strategy.

Randomized controlled trial of colonic stent insertion in non-curable large bowel obstruction: a post hoc cost analysis

AIM

In view of the increasing burden on the healthcare system, this study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the management of incurable large bowel obstruction comparing the cost of a stent vs surgery.

METHOD

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at two major teaching hospitals in Australia between September 2006 and November 2011. Fifty-six patients with malignant incurable large bowel obstruction were randomized to stent insertion or surgical decompression, of whom 52 were included in the final analysis. Data were collected at all points during the patient journey and quality of life data were obtained by patient surveys. All data points were analysed and a cost-effectiveness study was performed to compare the costs between the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

Stenting as a procedure was significantly more expensive than surgery (A$4462.50 vs A$3251.50; P < 0.001). Post-procedure stay for stented patients was significantly lower (median 7 vs 11 days; P = 0.03). Combined costs of stent group ward stay, multidisciplinary team discussion and complication management were significantly lower (P = 0.013). Overall cost difference between the two treatment groups was A$3902.44 (P = 0.101). European Quality of Life - 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores for the first 4 weeks gave mean area under the curve adjusted weeks of 2.411 vs 2.271 for the stent and surgery groups respectively (P = 0.603). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the surgery and the stent group was $22 955.53 in favour of stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with stenting is cheaper than open surgery and provides quicker discharge from hospital.

Cost-effectiveness thresholds: methods for setting and examples from around the world

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) are used to judge if an intervention represents sufficient value for money to merit adoption in healthcare systems. The study was motivated by the Brazilian context of HTA, where meetings are being conducted to decide on the definition of a threshold.

AREAS COVERED

An electronic search was conducted on Medline (via PubMed), Lilacs (via BVS) and ScienceDirect followed by a complementary search of references of included studies, Google Scholar and conference abstracts. Cost-effectiveness thresholds are usually calculated through three different approaches: the willingness-to-pay, representative of welfare economics; the precedent method, based on the value of an already funded technology; and the opportunity cost method, which links the threshold to the volume of health displaced. An explicit threshold has never been formally adopted in most places. Some countries have defined thresholds, with some flexibility to consider other factors. An implicit threshold could be determined by research of funded cases.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

CETs have had an important role as a 'bridging concept' between the world of academic research and the 'real world' of healthcare prioritization. The definition of a cost-effectiveness threshold is paramount for the construction of a transparent and efficient Health Technology Assessment system.

Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries

BACKGROUND

Although health technology assessment (HTA) systems base their decision making process either on economic evaluations or comparative clinical benefit assessment, a central aim of recent approaches to value measurement, including value based assessment and pricing, points towards the incorporation of supplementary evidence and criteria that capture additional dimensions of value.

OBJECTIVE

To study the practices, processes and policies of value-assessment for new medicines across eight European countries and the role of HTA beyond economic evaluation and clinical benefit assessment.

METHODS

A systematic (peer review and grey) literature review was conducted using an analytical framework examining: (1) 'Responsibilities and structure of HTA agencies'; (2) 'Evidence and evaluation criteria considered in HTAs'; (3) 'Methods and techniques applied in HTAs'; and (4) 'Outcomes and implementation of HTAs'. Study countries were France, Germany, England, Sweden, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Evidence from the literature was validated and updated through two rounds of feedback involving primary data collection from national experts.

RESULTS

All countries assess similar types of evidence; however, the specific criteria/endpoints used, their level of provision and requirement, and the way they are incorporated (e.g. explicitly vs. implicitly) varies across countries, with their relative importance remaining generally unknown. Incorporation of additional 'social value judgements' (beyond clinical benefit assessment) and economic evaluation could help explain heterogeneity in coverage recommendations and decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More comprehensive and systematic assessment procedures characterised by increased transparency, in terms of selection of evaluation criteria, their importance and intensity of use, could lead to more rational evidence-based decision-making, possibly improving efficiency in resource allocation, while also raising public confidence and fairness.

Slipped capital femoral epiphysis

Controversy remains whether the contralateral hip should be fixed in patients presenting with unilateral slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE). This retrospective study compares the outcomes and cost of those patients who had prophylactic fixation with those who did not.

Between January 2000 and December 2010 a total of 50 patients underwent unilateral fixation and 36 had prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip. There were 54 males and 32 females with a mean age of 12.3 years (9 to 16). The rate of a subsequent slip without prophylactic fixation was 46%. The risk of complications was greater, the generic health measures (Short Form-12 physical (p < 0.001) and mental (p = 0.004) summary scores) were worse. Radiographic cam lesions in patients presenting with unilateral SCFE were only seen in patients who did not have prophylactic fixation. Furthermore, prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip was found to be a cost-effective procedure, with a cost per quality adjusted life year gained of £1431 at the time of last follow-up.

Prophylactic fixation of the contralateral hip is a cost-effective operation that limits the morbidity from the complications of a further slip, and the diminished functional outcome associated with unilateral fixation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1428–34.

Cost-effectiveness of the PECARN rules in children with minor head trauma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To improve the efficiency and appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) use in children with minor head trauma, clinical prediction rules were derived and validated by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules to usual care for selective CT use.

METHODS

We used decision analytic modeling to project the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of applying the PECARN rules compared with usual care in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 children with minor blunt head trauma. Clinical management was directed by level of risk as specified by the presence or absence of variables in the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules. Immediate costs of care (diagnostic testing, treatment [not including clinician time], and hospital stay) were derived on single-center data. Quality-adjusted life-year losses related to the sequelae of clinically important traumatic brain injuries and to radiation-induced cancers, number of CT scans, number of radiation-induced cancers, number of missed clinically important traumatic brain injury, and total costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with the usual care strategy, the PECARN strategy was projected to miss slightly more children with clinically important traumatic brain injuries (0.26 versus 0.02 per 1,000 children) but used fewer cranial CT scans (274 versus 353), resulted in fewer radiation-induced cancers (0.34 versus 0.45), cost less ($904,940 versus $954,420), and had lower net quality-adjusted life-year loss (-4.64 versus -5.79). Because the PECARN strategy was more effective (less quality-adjusted life-year loss) and less costly, it dominated the usual care strategy. Results were robust under sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Application of the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules for children with minor head trauma would lead to beneficial outcomes and more cost-effective care.

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a clinical decision rule versus usual care to risk stratify children for intraabdominal injury after blunt torso trauma

OBJECTIVES

Recently a clinical decision rule (CDR) to identify children at very low risk for intraabdominal injury needing acute intervention (IAI) following blunt torso trauma was developed. Potential benefits of a CDR include more appropriate abdominal computed tomography (CT) use and decreased hospital costs. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of implementing the CDR compared to usual care for the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma. The hypothesis was that compared to usual care, implementation of the CDR would result in lower CT use and hospital costs.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness decision analytic model was constructed comparing the costs and outcomes of implementation of the CDR to usual care in the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma. Probabilities from a multicenter cohort study of children with blunt torso trauma were derived; estimated costs were based on those at the study coordinating site. Outcome measures included missed IAI, number of abdominal CT scans, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses varying imputed probabilities, costs, and scenarios were conducted.

RESULTS

Using a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 children with blunt torso trauma, the base case model projected that the implementation of the CDR would result in 0.50 additional missed IAIs, a total cost savings of $54,527, and 104 fewer abdominal CT scans compared to usual care. The usual care strategy would cost $108,110 to prevent missing one additional IAI. Findings were robust under multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, implementation of the CDR in the evaluation of children with blunt torso trauma would reduce hospital costs and abdominal CT imaging, with a slight increase in the risk of missed intraabdominal IAI.

Outcome instruments for the shoulder

Outcome surveys may play a vital role in the future of orthopaedics. Institutions may increasingly look toward determining the effectiveness of treatment options, but different validation studies often yield different results. There is a clear need for consistency when reporting patient-reported outcome scores. Knowledge of the available outcome scores and their strengths and weaknesses will allow orthopaedic surgeons to practice evidence-based medicine, offer their patients the most appropriate treatments, and successfully navigate the increasingly complex reimbursement system. Orthopaedic surgeons will need to show conclusively that their procedures improved patient outcomes and were cost-effective. We conducted a review of upper extremity outcome systems commonly used in the shoulder and their scoring and validation.

[Is the morbid obesity surgery profitable in times of crisis? A cost-benefit analysis of bariatric surgery]

Morbid obesity is a serious health problem whose prevalence is increasing. Expensive co-morbidities are associated to these patients, as well as a reduction in the survival. Bariatric surgery resolves the co-morbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus, 86.6%; cardiovascular risk, 79.0%; obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, 83.6%; hypertension, 61.7%), reduces the mortality rate (among 31-40%), and increases the morbid obese patients survival over a 10-years period. It provides significant savings for the National Health System. The obese patients consume a 20% plus of health resources and 68% plus of drugs than general population. Bariatric surgery requires an initial investment (diagnosis-related group cost: 7,468 €), but it is recovered in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 2.5 years. Significant savings are obtained from the third year. To the direct economic benefits associated with reduced health expenditures it should be added an increase in tax collection (sick leave and unemployment reduction is estimated in 18%, with a productivity increase of 57% for self-employed people). Bariatric surgery is one of the most cost-effective procedures in the healthcare system.

The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine

The main rationale for using biosimilar drugs is for cost saving. The market development for biosimilar drugs will therefore depend on the degree to which cost saving measures are required by nations, medical insurers and individuals and the absolute savings that could be gained by switching from original drugs. This paper is designed to discover the degree to which financial constraints will drive future health spending and to discover if legal or safety issues could impact on any trend. A structured literature search was performed for papers and documents to 27 August 2011. Where multiple sources of data were available on a topic, data from papers and reports by multinational or national bodies were used in preference to data from regions or individual hospitals. Almost all health systems face current significant cost pressures. The twin driver of increasing cancer prevalence as populations age and cancer medicine costs rising faster than inflation places oncology as the most significant single cost problem. For some countries, this is predicted to make medicine unaffordable within a decade. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a cost-control measure. Biosimilar introduction into the EU has already forced prices down, both the price of biosimilar drugs and competitive price reductions in originator drugs. Compound annual growth rates of use have been predicted at 65.8% per year. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a major cost-control measure. Only legal blocks and safety concerns are likely to act against this trend. For centralised healthcare systems, and those with a strong tradition of generic medicine use, biosimilar use will clearly rise with predictions of more than 80% of prescriptions of some biologic drugs within 1 year of market entry in the USA. Delaying the implementation of such programmes however risks a real crisis in healthcare delivery for many countries and hospitals that few can now afford.