Search

To assess the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab as add-on maintenance therapy compared with standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of patients with severe asthma in Canada. A cost utility analysis was conducted using a Markov cohort model with five health states ("controlled asthma", "uncontrolled asthma", "previously controlled asthma with exacerbation", "previously uncontrolled asthma with exacerbation", and "death"). Tezepelumab plus SoC was compared to SoC (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta agonist) using efficacy estimates derived from the NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and SOURCE (NCT03406078) trials. The model included the costs of therapy, administration, resource use for disease management, and adverse events. Utility estimates were calculated using a mixed-effects regression analysis of the NAVIGATOR and SOURCE trials. A Canadian public payer perspective was used with a 50-year time horizon, a 1.5% annual discount rate, and the base case analysis was conducted probabilistically. A key scenario analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab compared with currently reimbursed biologics informed by an indirect treatment comparison. The base case analysis suggested that tezepelumab plus SoC was associated with a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 1.077 compared with SoC alone at an incremental cost of $207,101 (2022 Canadian dollars), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $192,357/QALY. The key scenario analysis demonstrated that tezepelumab was dominant against all currently reimbursed biologics, with higher incremental QALYs (ranging from 0.062 to 0.407) and lower incremental costs (ranging from −$6,878 to −$1,974). Additionally, when compared against currently reimbursed biologics in Canada, tezepelumab had the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Tezepelumab provided additional life years and QALYs at additional cost compared with SoC in Canada. In addition, tezepelumab dominated (i.e. more effective, less costly) the other currently reimbursed biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paediatric growth hormone deficiency (pGHD) manifests as growth failure associated with inadequate growth hormone (GH) production. Daily injections of recombinant human GH (dGH) [somatropin] is the current standard of care, which has been shown to be well tolerated and effective, but associated with suboptimal adherence, leading to reduced effectiveness. Somatrogon, a once-weekly injectable long-acting human GH, has demonstrated clinical non-inferiority and significantly lower life interference (i.e. treatment burden) vs. somatropin in two Phase 3 studies. This work evaluated cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of somatrogon vs dGHs from an Irish payer perspective. A Markov model was developed for patients starting somatrogon or dGHs treatment at 3–12 years and continuing up to achievement of near adult height (NAH), with growth driven by trial-based height velocity (HV) and treatment-specific adherence. Patients could discontinue treatment at the end of Year 1 (4%). DGH adherence (95.3%–65% over treatment duration) and adherence-growth relationship were based on published evidence. Higher Year 1 adherence of 4%, tapering over time, for somatrogon vs. dGHs was based on clinical consultation. Treatment costs, monitoring costs and costs due to different wastage types (device setting and adherence) were sourced from local data. Health utilities based on height and injection frequency were derived from published literature. Scenario analysis, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Somatrogon treatment led to 1.87–3.66 cm greater NAH gain and 0.21–0.50 higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dGHs, across the base case and scenarios evaluated. Somatrogon treatment was associated with cost savings of €5,699–€21,974 and lower cost per cm gained vs. dGHs (€197–€527), per patient. Somatrogon was cost-effective vs. dGHs, with the result consistent across the sensitivity analyses conducted. Somatrogon weekly injections were estimated to result in higher NAH, higher QALYs, lower overall costs and lower costs per cm gained than dGHs, in pGHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advantage of tenecteplase (TNK) over alteplase (ALT) in managing acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has been reported, but the cost-effectiveness of these two strategies has not received as much attention. The objective of this study was to compare TNK and ALT for the management of AIS patients in Iran in terms of cost-effectiveness. This study was carried out from the payer's perspective in Iran, with a lifetime horizon. A full economic evaluation model was designed as a decision tree and a Markov model. After defining different Markov states, each health state was assigned a utility value, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated using that value. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was ultimately used for evaluating the comparative cost-effectiveness. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. Compared to ALT, TNK can save approximately 4333.81 USD, and is able to increase one unit of QALY while saving approximately 17,450.29 USD. So, Base-case results showed that TNK strongly dominates ALT. Moreover, the base case results were strongly confirmed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Base-case and sensitivity analysis showed that TNK is the dominant strategy compared to ALT for the management of AIS patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Thailand is high and kidney disease progression remains a problem. Empagliflozin has been known to be used to slow CKD progression, but its accessibility remains limited. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of empagliflozin for CKD progression in Thailand., Methods: A state-transition model was developed consisting of eight health states: five eGFR health states (G2, G3a, G3b, G4 and G5), dialysis, kidney transplantation and death. Empagliflozin 10 mg was assessed as an add-on treatment to standard of care (SoC). The efficacy of empagliflozin was derived from the EMPA-KIDNEY trial, while other inputs were obtained from a comprehensive literature review. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to explore uncertainties., Results: Empagliflozin could improve QALYs by 0.62 and 0.71 for patients with CKD without and with diabetes mellitus (DM) compared with SoC, respectively. However, it required higher total lifetime costs of 77,966 Thai baht (THB) and 59,454 THB for patients with CKD without and with DM, respectively. The ICER for CKD without DM was 126,201 THB/QALY, while the ICER for CKD with DM was 83,473 THB/QALY. The PSA indicated that empagliflozin had a 64.00% probability of being cost-effective for CKD without DM and an 89.18% probability for CKD with DM., Limitations: An important limitation was that the treatment effects of empagliflozin were derived from the EMPA-KIDNEY, which was conducted in DM patients and assumed to be the same for non-DM patients because of the limited evidence in non-DM patients., Conclusion: At the current willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY, empagliflozin was cost-effective for treating patients with CKD without or with DM.

Objectives: In the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS), the different drugs for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) are used in an escalating approach, through therapeutic lines from lowest to highest efficacy. Early intensive treatment, indicating the use of more effective drugs for the first symptoms of the disease, has been advocated by some specialists; however, the clinical and economic impact of this strategy is unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct cost-utility, net benefit, and efficiency frontier (EF) analyses for all drugs approved in Brazil for RRMS., Methods: A Markov model was constructed from the SUS perspective to conduct economic analyses. The outcomes of the annualized relapse rate and sustained disability progression were modeled, considering disease progression according to changes in levels on the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Net benefit and EF analyses were also conducted., Results: In the cost-utility assessment, 12 of the 14 drugs were dominated by alemtuzumab and teriflunomide. An EF was established between the 2 drugs with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8231.87/quality-adjusted life-years. Teriflunomide obtained the best results in the net benefit assessment. Most drugs had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the cost-utility threshold ($8000.00/quality-adjusted life-years) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis., Conclusions: Early intensive treatment of EF may modify the current RRMS treatment paradigm, and the results presented may help define the cost utility of new entrants to the SUS., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Hunter syndrome is among the costliest life-long genetic conditions associated with a substantial burden-of-illness and a significant impact on the health systems, families, and society. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of long-term enzyme replacement therapy with idursulfase versus the standard of care from a societal perspective using a streamlined modeling strategy in R., Methods: A de novo 4-state partitioned survival model was developed to compare lifetime cost and outcomes of 2 care models operationalized in R. The disease progression was based on independent survival modeling of relevant Kaplan-Meier data. The healthcare and out-of-pocket costs were drawn from the local setting. The quality of life was measured using the EQ5D5L and the time trade-off valuation of health-state vignettes that match the states in the model. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainty around the model results., Results: The lifetime incremental quality-adjusted life years were 4.1 years (95% CI, 2.37-5.68). Incremental costs were estimated to be $9.5 million (95% CI, 9.0 million-10.0 million), which primarily consists of drug costs (99%). The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year were estimated to be approximately $2.4 million (95% CI, 1.7 million-3.8 million). Sensitivity analyses showed that the key drivers of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were quality of life in the preprogression state and differential discounting approach, besides the acquisition cost of enzyme replacement therapy of idursulfase., Conclusions: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were beyond any conventionally used cost-effectiveness threshold in all cases. At the current price, there is a significant discrepancy between the therapy's funding decision and the cost-effectiveness assessment as a basis for guiding healthcare prioritization in Malaysia., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2025 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Context: Many efforts have been made to determine what is the best treatment strategy for neurologically intact patients with TL burst fractures: surgery or nonoperative management. Studies comparing clinical outcomes have produced mixed and inconclusive results creating lack of consensus in the expert community., Purpose: Therefore, it is necessary to explore other important components of healthcare such as economics to settle this controversial debate. The goal of the current study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing surgical treatment to nonoperative treatment for neurologically intact TL burst fractures (AOSpine classification types A3 and A4) from a societal perspective in a multicenter and international setting., Study Design/setting: We performed a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective comparing the cost-utility of surgical treatment versus nonsurgical treatment of thoracolumbar (TL) burst fractures in neurologically intact patients., Patient Sample: Patient demographics and all clinical and outcome data were taken from an observational, prospective multicenter cohort study comparing surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of TL burst fractures in neurological intact patients., Outcome Measures: The ICER was calculated comparing surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for the full analysis population with a 1-year time horizon, two-year time horizon as well as the working-life time horizon. Costs were taken from the clinical study, patient diaries with productivity loss documented, current scientific literature in addition to national and international healthcare costing guidelines and databases., Methods: The mean difference in cost between the two treatment groups were calculated, firstly by applying the central limit theorem, and secondly by using bootstrapping. To calculate the average cost per patient in each treatment group, the Kaplan-Meier Sample Average (KMSA) estimator was used in order to take account of the censored patients. To evaluate the derived models and to explore uncertainty, sensitivity analysis was used., Results: Eleven sites from different regions (North America, Europe, Middle east, and Asia) completed the recruitment and follow-up for 213 patients. One hundred and thirty patients were treated surgically (61.0%) and eighty-three patients (39.0%) were treated nonsurgically. At 1-year, the ICER for surgical treatment was $191,648.00 USD per QALY. Compared to a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000, surgical treatment was not cost-effective within the 1-year timeframe. At 2-years, the nonsurgical group had visited the surgeon or general practitioner more often (0.31 vs. 0.25). The nonsurgical group had visited physiotherapist and other allied health more often (3.68 vs. 1.68). The utilization of NSAIDs and opioids remained higher in the nonsurgical group (2.66 vs. 2.39) (1.52 vs. 0.75). The average workdays lost remained higher in the nonsurgical group (143.12 vs. 114.78). The caregiver days taken off work remained higher in the nonsurgical group (29.86 vs. 2.39). At 2 years, surgical treatment showed to be a dominant strategy with a $28,978.50 savings per QALY. At lifetime horizon, surgical treatment remained the cost-effective strategy at $25,530.18 savings per QALY., Conclusion: Our cost-utility analysis showed surgical management to be cost-effective at 2 years compared to nonoperative management in neurologically intact TL burst fractures from a societal perspective. This finding was maintained through the working-lifetime horizon. Surgical treatment became cost-effective largely due to the greater productivity loss of patients and caregivers within the nonsurgical group. This investigation highlights the viability for surgical management of TL burst fractures to provide societal benefit especially when productivity is valued., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict of interest related to this work., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study focuses on epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated lung adenocarcinoma, known for frequent brain metastasis. It aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of combining Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (GKRS+TKI group) versus TKIs alone (TKI group) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastasis in this condition., Methods: Study characteristics of the two groups were matched using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) model, a healthcare provider perspective, a 1-month cycle length, a 5-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 2% per year for both effectiveness and costs were adopted. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted to demonstrate the robustness of the findings. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 23.0, and cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using TreeAge Pro software., Results: After applying IPTW, the GKRS+TKI group included 205 patients, and the TKI group consisted of 102 patients, with no statistically significant differences in whole confounders. The GKRS+TKI group demonstrated significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (37.5 months vs 10.6 months, p < 0.001) and median overall survival (55.1 months vs 30.8 months, p < 0.001) compared with the TKI group. The GKRS plus TKI strategy achieved an ICUR of $30,532.25 per quality-adjusted life year relative to the TKIs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$33,059 (Taiwan's per capita gross domestic product)., Conclusions: The use of GKRS plus TKIs not only reduces disease recurrence and improves prognosis but also demonstrates a higher level of cost-effectiveness. These findings offer valuable guidelines for clinicians and inform healthcare authorities in optimizing resource allocation for improved medical care.

Carlo Lazzaro,1 Cécile van Steen,2 Stephan Billeit,3 Heinrich Frauenknecht,4 Christopher Kallen,5 Stefan Pfennigsdorf,6 Ulrich Thelen,7,8 Luigi Angelillo2 1Health Economist and Research Director, Studio di Economia Sanitaria, Milan, Italy; 2Santen GmbH, München, Germany; 3Private Practicing Ophthalmologist, Lübeck, Germany; 4Private Practicing Ophthalmologist, Treuchtlingen, Germany; 5Private Practicing Ophthalmologist, Krefeld, Germany; 6Private Practicing Ophthalmologist, Polch, Germany; 7Private Practicing Ophthalmologist, Münster, Germany; 8University Hospital Muenster, Department of Ophthalmology, Münster, GermanyCorrespondence: Carlo LazzaroHealth Economist and Research Director, Studio di Economia Sanitaria, Via Stefanardo da Vimercate, 19, Milan, I-20128, Italy, Tel/Fax +39 02 2600 0516, Email carlo.lazzaro@tiscalinet.itPurpose: This study aimed to estimate the cost–utility and economic value of STN1013001, a latanoprost cationic emulsion vs other latanoprost formulations (henceforth latanoprost) in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT) and concomitant ocular surface disease (OSD) in Germany.Methods: An early 5-year Markov model-supported cost–utility analysis was performed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life-years saved (LYS) for STN1013001 vs latanoprost from the German health system perspective. The model included seven mutually exclusive health states and adopted a 1-year cycle length. The model was populated with pooled data derived, by means of a questionnaire, from a convenience sample of five German glaucoma specialists. Remaining data were derived from published sources. Data provided by the ophthalmologists included annual treatment adherence probabilities, utility values and resource utilization. The half-cycle correction as well as a discount rate of 3.0% per year were applied to costs (expressed in € 2020), life-year saved (LYS) and QALYs. The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR) was contrasted against the informal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for incremental LYS saved or QALY gained (€ 30,000) proposed for Germany. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA; PSA) tested the robustness of the base case ICUR.Results: Over the 5-year time horizon, STN1013001 strongly dominates latanoprost as it is less costly (€ 1003.65 vs € 1145.37; − 12.37%) and produces more QALYs (2.612 vs 2.365; +10.44%) per notional patient. Baseline findings were robust against all the variations included in OWSA. PSA shows that STN1013001 has a 100% probability of being cost-effective vs Latanoprost at each WTP threshold for incremental QALY gained.Conclusion: Once on the market, STN1013001 will provide a cost-effective and possibly strongly dominant therapy vs latanoprost for OAG/OHT+OSD patients from a German health system perspective. Future empirical research should confirm these findings.Keywords: open-angle glaucoma, ocular surface disease, STN1013001, latanoprost, cost–utility analysis, Germany

Salvatore Russo,1,&ast; Stefano Landi,2,&ast; Stephane Courric3 1Department of Management, University of Venice, Venezia, Italy; 2Department of Business Administration and Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy; 3Hays Pharma, Paris, France&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Stefano LandiDepartment of Business Administration and Management, University of Verona, Via Cantarane, 24, Verona, 37129, ItalyTel +39 3463287572Email stefano.landi@univr.itIntroduction: Diabetic chronic foot ulcers (DFU) lead to pain, reduced quality of life and represent a severe economic burden for patients and health systems. The clinical results of PRP effectiveness in the treatment of DFU are promising; on the other hand, the costs associated with treating DFUs with PRP are higher than those using standard therapy. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy compared to standard therapy from the French healthcare system perspective.Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed using a decision Markov model with a cohort of patients with chronic DFU (duration of > 3 weeks) with high orthopaedic risk and with ulcers graded 3A according to University of Texas classification. The effectiveness outcomes are reported in terms of quality adjusted life year (QALY). The costs are reported in euro (€) currency evaluated in 2019. A micro-costing approach alongside a clinical study was used to assess resource use. Deterministic sensibility analyses are reported to evaluate the robustness of the results. The analyses were carried out in the French setting.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PRP treatment is –€ 613/ QALY, which, being lower than zero, indicates the dominance of the PRP therapy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis underlines the main parameter affecting CE results. Lowest number of standard of care weekly medications (from 5 to 3) leads to a € 622/QALY while increasing PRP weekly medication (from 1 to 4) has an ICER of € 732/QALY.Discussion: PRP is a cost-effective or even a cost-saving alternative in the French setting. PRP has higher cost for the complete medication, but, in the absence of wound complications, has the potential to involve lower consumption of resources in the form of routine medication over a 1-year time horizon.Keywords: platelet-rich plasma, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, diabetic foot ulcer

IntroductionSince September 2020, Chinese populations aged > 3 years have been encouraged to receive a two-dose inoculation with vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy amongst the general population in mainland China from a societal perspective.MethodsIn this study, we construct a decision tree with Markov models to compare the economic and health consequences of the current vaccination strategy versus a no-vaccination scenario, over a time horizon of one year and an annual discount rate of 5%. Transition probabilities, health utilities, healthcare costs, and productivity losses are estimated from literature. Outcome measures include infection rates, death rates, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is then calculated to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the current vaccination strategy, and both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) are applied to assess the impact of uncertainties on results.ResultsOur simulation indicates that compared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination amongst the general population in mainland China would reduce the infection rate from 100% to 45.3% and decrease the death rate from 6.8% to 3.1%. Consequently, the strategy will lead to a saving of 37,664.77 CNY (US$5,256.70) and a gain of 0.50 QALYs per person per year on average (lifetime QALY and productivity loss due to immature death are included). The cost-saving for each QALY gain is 74,895.69 CNY (US$10,452.85). Result of the PSA indicates that vaccination is the dominating strategy with a probability of 97.9%, and the strategy is cost-effective with a probability of 98.5% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) is 72,000 CNY (US$10,048.71) per QALY.ConclusionCompared with a no-vaccination scenario, vaccination among the general population in mainland China is the dominating strategy from a societal perspective. The conclusion is considered robust in the sensitivity analyses.

Abstract Background Only two-thirds of patients admitted to psychiatric wards return to their previous jobs. Return-to-work interventions in Germany are investigated for their effectiveness, but information regarding cost-effectiveness is lacking. This study investigates the cost-utility of a return-to-work intervention for patients with mental disorders compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Methods We used data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial including 166 patients from 28 inpatient psychiatric wards providing data at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Health and social care service use was measured with the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Cost-utility analysis was performed by calculating additional costs per one additional QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) gained by receiving the support of return-to-work experts, in comparison to TAU. Results No significant cost or QALY difference between the intervention and control groups has been detected. The return-to-work intervention cannot be identified as cost-effective in comparison to TAU. Conclusions The employment of return-to-work experts could not reach the threshold of providing good value for money. TAU, therefore, seems to be sufficient support for the target group.

Background: Understanding what an economic evaluation is, how to interpret it, and what it means for making choices in a health delivery context is necessary to contribute to decisions about healthcare resource allocation. The aim of this paper to demystify the working parts of a health economic evaluation, and explain to clinicians and clinical researchers how to read and interpret cost-effectiveness research. Main body: This primer distils key content and constructs of economic evaluation studies, and explains health economic evaluation in plain language. We use the PICOT (participant, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe) clinical trial framework familiar to clinicians, clinical decision-makers, and clinical researchers, who may be unfamiliar with economics, as an aide to reading and interpreting cost-effectiveness research. We provide examples, primarily of physiotherapy interventions for osteoarthritis. Conclusions: Economic evaluation studies are essential to improve decisions about allocating resources, whether those resources be your time, the capacity of your service, or the available funding across the entire healthcare system. The PICOT framework can be used to understand and interpret cost-effectiveness research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the economical effect of zoledronic acid and ibandronate sodium in the treatment of patients with bone metastases of malignant tumors. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 86 cases of bone metastases of malignant tumors in × Hospital from January 2020 to January 2022, of which 46 cases were treated with zoledronic acid (group A) and 40 cases were treated with ibandronate sodium (Group B), compare the pain control effect, adverse reactions and the SF-36 score between the two groups, and summarize the cost of the two treatment options, and use the principles of pharmaco economics to conduct a cost-utility analysis. Results: The pain control rate in group A was 82.61%, which was not statistically different from 85.00% in group B (P>0.05); after treatment, the physiological function (PF) and physiological function (RP) in the SF-36 score of the two groups, body pain (BP), general health (GH), social function (SF), mental health (MH), emotional function (RE), and vitality (VT) were significantly higher than those before treatment (P<0.05), but the group There was no statistically significant difference between groups (P>0.05); the incidence of adverse reactions in group A and group B was similar, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05); the drug cost (C1) and total cost (C) of group A were respectively (4052.50±80.50) yuan and (4453.87±123.56) yuan, which were higher than (2025.50±70.15) yuan and (2395.44±109.17) yuan in group B, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); group A cost- The utility ratio (CUR) was judged by the SF-36 scale to be 4189.94, and that of group B was 2829.17. Conclusion: Considering the effectiveness and economy of the drug, the use of ibandronate sodium in the treatment of bone metastases of malignant tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Late-life depression can impact health (QALYs), retirement, and consumer spending. • We use panel VAR model of mental and physical health, labor supply, and consumption. • Late-life depression costs 0.85 to 2.1 quality-adjusted life years per person. • Total willingness-to-pay cost of depression estimated at $180–360 billion annually. • Cost of late-life depression is falling over birth cohorts but growing more unequal. We quantify the welfare cost of depression among older Americans by estimating a panel VAR model of mental and physical health, labor supply, and consumption using data from the Health and Retirement Study. We use the estimated model and age sixty joint distribution of outcomes to simulate life-cycle paths with and without prevalence of depressive symptoms after age sixty. We estimate that the prevalence of late-life depressive symptoms costs an average of between 0.85 and 2.1 years in quality-adjusted life expectancy per person. Moreover, depression may result in an average loss of labor supply of up to 1.1 months and lifetime consumption of up to $16,000. Combining into a single compensating variation welfare metric, we estimate a bound on the average welfare cost of depression of 8–15% of annual consumption after age sixty. On aggregate, this amounts to roughly $180–360 billion annually. We also project that while the average welfare cost of late-life depression is declining slightly over birth cohorts, the welfare burden is becoming significantly more unequal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. These datas will help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and a better use of healthcare resources. The management of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has been significantly modified by the availability of innovative but expensive treatments, increasing the economic burden of prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to systematically identify and review published economic evaluations (EEs) related to the treatment of mHSPC and assess their quality. A systematic search was performed of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. Three reviewers independently selected EEs by defined inclusion and exclusion cr iter ia. They extracted all data from each EE (general information, study population, data about the EE, interventions and comparators, and outcomes). They also assessed the quality of the selected EEs according to Drummond's checklist. Fourteen EEs published between 2016 and 2021 were eligible for the systematic review. The EEs found ADT + docetaxel to be the most cost-effective of all available treatments as a first-line strategy for mHSPC (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide). Five EEs showed that a simple price reduction of abiraterone acetate of 50% to 75% could change the results to render this treatment also cost-effective relative to that with docetaxel. Twelve EEs were of high quality, with a Drummond score ≤ 7. Analysis of the 14 EEs identified by our systematic review, amongst which 78.6% met high quality standards, showed that ADT + docetaxel tends to be the most cost-effective alternative for mHSPC. These results were assessed by sensitivity analysis. The data provided by this systematic review help to provide a better understanding of these treatments and the better use of healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, ICU bed shortages sparked a discussion about resource allocation. We aimed to analyse the value of ICU treatment of COVID‐19 from a patient‐centred health economic perspective. We prospectively included 49 patients with severe COVID‐19 and calculated direct medical treatment costs. Quality of life was converted into aggregated quality‐adjusted life years using the statistical remaining life expectancy. Costs for non‐treatment as the comparator were estimated using the value of statistical life year approach. We used multivariable linear or logistic regression to identify predictors of treatment costs, quality of life and survival. Mean (SD) direct medical treatment costs were higher in patients in ICU with COVID‐19 compared with those without (£60,866 (£42,533) vs. £8282 (£14,870), respectively; p < 0.001). This was not solely attributable to prolonged ICU length of stay, as costs per day were also higher (£3115 (£1374) vs. £1490 (£713), respectively; p < 0.001), independent of overall disease severity. We observed a beneficial cost‐utility value of £7511 per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained, even with a more pessimistic assumption towards the remaining life expectancy. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy provided no additional quality‐adjusted life‐year benefit. Compared with non‐treatment (costs per lost life year, £106,085), ICU treatment (costs per quality‐adjusted life‐year, £7511) was economically preferable, even with a pessimistic interpretation of patient preferences for survival (sensitivity analysis of the value of statistical life year, £48,848). Length of ICU stay was a positive and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation a negative predictor for quality of life, whereas costs per day were a positive predictor for mortality. These data suggest that despite high costs, ICU treatment for severe COVID‐19 may be cost‐effective for quality‐adjusted life‐years gained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost–utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE® In-process, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2010 to October 2020 by two independent reviewers for all CEAs and CUAs in adults with any of the following conditions: ankylosing spondylitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and ulcerative colitis. Relevant study data were extracted and evidence was synthesized for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Productivity cost elements including absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment/early retirement, premature mortality and informal care were extracted, along with the method used to determine them. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the inclusion of productivity loss. Results: Our searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. Conclusions: The results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: IDegLira (brand name Xultophy) is a novel fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. This study aimed to investigate the lifetime cost-effective value of IDegLira compared with its single component (Degludec or Liraglutide) and to explore the suitable annual cost of IDegLira if necessary. Methods: UKPDS OM2 was applied to determine the long-term qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) and total costs. The efficacy data that were inputted into the model were synthesized from 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that directly assessed the clinical benefit of IDegLira and its components in the treatment of uncontrolled T2D patients. The economic results were examined by one-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Further price reduction of IDegLira was investigated by binary search. Results: The IDegLira, IDeg, and Lira yielded 11.79 QALYs, 11.62 QALYs, and 11.73 QALYs and total cost of $20281.61, $3726.76, and $11941.26, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of IDegLira versus IDeg was $99464.12/QALYs, and the ICUR of IDegLira versus Lira was $143348.26/QALYs, which indicated that IDegLira was not a cost-effective therapy for T2D patients compared with its components at the current price from a Chinese national healthcare system perspective. Base case results were robust to OSA and PSA. A further binary search showed that IDegLira appears to only be cost-effective if the annual cost of IDegLira is decreased by 58% when IDeg is considered as a reference, or by 30.57% when Lira is considered as a reference. Conclusion: In conclusion, IDegLira appears to not be cost-effective when compared with the current prices of IDeg or Lira for T2D patients in China. However, after the binary search, IDegLira appears to only be cost-effective if the annual cost of IDegLira is decreased 58% when IDeg is considered as a reference, or by 30.57% when Lira is considered as a reference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes mellitus (DM), as one of the most common metabolic diseases, is the ninth leading cause of death globally and imposes heavy costs on the health systems including both costs of treatment and management of secondary complications. This study intended to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide compared with liraglutide in the management of patients with type 2 DM in Iran. We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a 5-state Markov model from the health system perspective, over a 10-year time horizon, in 2018 in Iran. Sensitivity of the model has been evaluated through tornado diagram and using one-way sensitivity analysis. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analysis has been accomplished using Monte Carlo simulation. The average costs of treatment of patients with type 2 DM using the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens are 17 577.09 and 18 517.54 US dollars per patient, respectively, over a 10-year time horizon. In terms of effectiveness, the average discounted quality-adjusted life-year rates are estimated at 5.560 and 5.403 for the dulaglutide and liraglutide treatment regimens, respectively. The model is mostly sensitive to the price of dulaglutide and liraglutide, the hemoglobin A1c reduction of liraglutide, and the utility resulting from less injection frequency of dulaglutide, respectively. Dulaglutide, in addition to being more effective, providing 0.156 more quality-adjusted life-years for the patients, reduces costs by 940.45 US dollars per patient over a 10-year time horizon. Therefore, due to the greater effectiveness and lower cost, it is concludable that dulaglutide is the cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = −6028.52) treatment alternative from the health system perspective. • Dulaglutide was associated with both less cost and more efficacy; therefore, by proposing a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, it is selected as the cost-effective treatment strategy from the health system perspective in comparison with liraglutide in Iran's healthcare setting. • Although this result is generally similar to other performed studies in this regard in different countries, the results are different when the comparison arm changes. • Sensitivity analysis shows that the result is most sensitive to the prices of dulaglutide and liraglutide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review quality of life (QOL) instruments for chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) patients and informal carers, and their use in QOL and cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies. Background: CLTI is a global health problem with significant morbidity affecting patients and informal carers. QOL is increasingly measured for holistic outcomes assessment and CUA. However, measurement instruments in CLTI are poorly understood. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, COSMIN, PROQOLID, CEA registry, and NHS EED databases were searched for all English language studies up to May 2021. Features of instruments, evidence of measurement property appraisal, and trends in use were assessed. Prospective protocol registration (Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KNG9U). Results: A total of 146 studies on QOL instruments (n=43), QOL outcomes (n=97), and CUA (n=9) were included. Four disease-specific QOL instruments are available for lower extremity arterial disease (intermittent claudication or CLTI). VascuQoL-25 and VascuQoL-6 have been used in CLTI. There is no CLTI-specific instrument. Of 14 generic instruments, SF-36, EQ-5D-3L, NHP, and WHOQOL-BREF were most common. Studies reporting partial measurement property appraisal favored VascuQoL-25, VascuQoL-6, and SF-36. Feasibility considerations include mode of administration and responder burden. None of 4 available carer-specific instruments have been used in CLTI. Since 1992, the number of QOL studies has increased considerably, but CUA studies are scarce. Informal carers have not been assessed. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive reference for QOL measurement in CLTI that helps end-users with instrument selection, use, and interpretation. However, a CLTI-specific instrument is needed. There is an opportunity to benefit society through future CUA studies and evaluation of QOL in informal carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved studies showed the benefits of empagliflozin along with a reduction in cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure (HF). Our aim was to evaluate the economics and effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in China. Methods: A multistate Markov model was constructed to yield the clinical and economic outcomes of adding empagliflozin to the standard therapy for 65-year-old patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. A cost-utility analysis was conducted, mostly derived from the EMPEROR-Reduced study, EMPEROR-Preserved study, and national statistical database. All costs and outcomes were discounted at the rate of 5% per annum. The primary outcomes were total and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: In the HFrEF population, the 10-year incremental cost was $827.52 and the 10-year incremental QALY was 0.15 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $5,612.06/QALY, which was below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFpEF population, compared with the control group, the incremental cost was $1,271.27, and the incremental QALY was 0.11 QALYs, yielding an ICER of 11,312.65 $/QALY, which was also below the WTP of $12,652.5/QALY. In the HFrEF and HFpEF populations, the results of a one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of cardiovascular death in both groups was the most influential parameter. In the HFrEF population, a probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12,652.5/QALY and $37,957.5/QALY, the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 59.4% and 72.6%, respectively. In the HFpEF population, the PSA results revealed that the probabilities of being cost-effective with empagliflozin as an add-on were 53.1% and 72.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Considering that the WTP threshold was $12,652.5/QALY, adding empagliflozin to standard therapy was proven to be a slightly more cost-effective option for the treatment of HFrEF and HFpEF from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, which promoted the rational use of empagliflozin for HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endovascular coiling (EC) has been identified in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to produce more favourable clinical outcomes in comparison to neurosurgical clipping (NC) when surgically treating a subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured aneurysm. Cost-effectiveness analyses between both interventions have been done, but no cost-utility analysis has yet been published. This systematic review aims to perform an economic analysis of the relative utility outcomes and costs from both treatments in the UK. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS), over a 1-year analytic horizon. Outcomes were obtained from the randomised International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) and measured in terms of the patient's modified Rankin scale (mRS) grade, a 6-point disability scale that aims to quantify a patient's functional outcome following a stroke. The mRS score was weighted against the Euro-QoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), with each state assigned a weighted utility value which was then converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A sensitivity analysis using different utility dimensions was performed to identify any variation in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) if different input variables were used. Costs were measured in pounds sterling (£) and discounted by 3.5% to 2020/2021 prices. The cost-utility analysis showed an ICER of − £144,004 incurred for every QALY gained when EC was utilised over NC. At NICE's upper willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £30,000, EC offered a monetary net benefit (MNB) of £7934.63 and health net benefit (HNB) of 0.264 higher than NC. At NICE's lower WTP threshold of £20,000, EC offered an MNB of £7478.63 and HNB of 0.374 higher than NC. EC was found to be more 'cost-effective' than NC, with an ICER in the bottom right quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane—indicating that it offers greater benefits at lower costs. This is supported by the ICER being below the NICE's threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY, and both MNB and HNB having positive values (> 0). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) typically involves intensive chemotherapy (IC); however, there is an unmet need for approximately 50% of AML patients who are deemed unfit or ineligible for IC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of venetoclax in combination with azacitidine (Ven+Aza) for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are 75 years or older or who have comorbidities that preclude using IC. A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Ven+Aza compared with Aza. Health states included event-free survival, progressive/relapsed disease, and death. Efficacy parameters were based on the VIALE-A trial. Analyses were conducted from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. Over a lifetime horizon, Ven+Aza was associated with a gain of 1.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with Aza. From an MoH perspective, Ven+Aza and Aza were associated with total costs of $204,305 and $82,333, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost–utility ratio of $73,841/QALY. Results were similar from a societal perspective. This economic evaluation demonstrates that, in comparison with Aza, Ven+Aza is a cost-effective strategy for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are deemed unfit for IC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biologics are a good therapeutic option for severe, chronic plaque psoriasis; however, they come with significant cost to the health care system. Objective: To conduct a cost-utility analysis of outpatient biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, guselkumab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab) available to adults with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Methods: A Markov cohort model was constructed to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs accrued for treatment pathways commencing with different first-line biologics, over a 96-week time horizon. The model adhered to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme eligibility criteria and guidelines. Results: A biologic treatment pathway commencing on tildrakizumab was the most cost-effective first-line treatment (Australian dollar 39,930; total utility of 1.57 QALYs over 96 weeks). First-line secukinumab and risankizumab had incremental cost-utility ratios of Australian dollar 194,524/QALY and Australian dollar 479,834/QALY, respectively, when compared with first-line tildrakizumab. Limitations: The efficacy and utility input parameters were derived from international randomized control trials and patients from the United Kingdom, respectively. Findings from this study cannot be generalized beyond Australia. Conclusion: Tildrakizumab may be considered as first-line treatment for adult patients with severe, chronic plaque psoriasis embarking on biologic therapy, from the economic perspective of the Australian health care system.

Abstract Background Minor ailments are “self-limiting conditions which may be diagnosed and managed without a medical intervention”. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) was designed to evaluate the clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of a Minor Ailment Service (MAS) in community pharmacy (CP) compared with usual care (UC). Methods The cRCT was conducted for 6 months from December 2017. The pharmacist-patient intervention consisted of a standardised face-to-face consultation on a web-based program using co-developed protocols, pharmacists’ training, practice change facilitators and patients’ educational material. Patients requesting a non-prescription medication (direct product request) or presenting minor ailments received MAS or UC and were followed-up by telephone 10-days after the consultation. The primary economic outcomes were incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the service and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs included health system, CPs and patient direct costs: health professionals’ consultation time, medication costs, pharmacists’ training costs, investment of the pharmacy and consultation costs within the 10 days following the initial consultation. The HRQoL was obtained using the EuroQoL 5D-5L at the time of the consultation and at 10-days follow up. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using bootstrapping. There were two sub-group analyses undertaken, for symptom presentation and direct product requests, to evaluate possible differences. Results A total of 808 patients (323 MAS and 485 UC) were recruited in 27 CPs with 42 pharmacists (20 MAS and 22 UC). 64.7% (n = 523) of patients responded to follow-up after their consultation in CP. MAS patients gained an additional 0.0003 QALYs (p = 0.053). When considering only MAS patients presenting with symptoms, the ICUR was 24,733€/QALY with a 47.4% probability of cost-effectiveness (willingness to pay of 25,000€/QALY). Although when considering patients presenting for a direct product request, MAS was the dominant strategy with a 93.69% probability of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Expanding community pharmacists’ scope through MAS may benefit health systems. To be fully cost effective, MAS should not only include consultations arising from symptom presentation but also include an oversight of self-selected products by patients. MAS increase patient safety through the appropriate use of non-prescription medication and through the direct referral of patients to GP. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN17235323 . Registered 07/05/2021 - Retrospectively registered

Kanyarat Katanyoo,1,2 Usa Chaikledkaew,3,4 Montarat Thavorncharoensap,3,4 Arthorn Riewpaiboon3 1Social, Economic and Administrative Pharmacy (SEAP) Graduate Program, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 2Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Vajira Hospital, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand; 3Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; 4Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, ThailandCorrespondence: Usa ChaikledkaewSocial and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri-Ayudhaya Road, Bangkok, ThailandTel +662-644-8678 ext 5317Fax +662-644-8694Email usa.chi@mahidol.ac.thPurpose: We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests, ie, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET⁄CT) for para-aortic lymph node detection (PALND), in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) patients (stages IB3–IVA) with or without laparoscopic lymphadenectomy (LL) compared with no investigation (NoIx) based on provider and societal perspectives during 5 years.Patients and Methods: Hybrid decision tree and Markov models were conducted to compare the cost and utility of six interventions including: 1) CT without LL, 2) CT with LL, 3) MRI without LL, 4) MRI with LL, 5) PET/CT without LL, and 6) PET/CT with LL compared with NoIx. All clinical parameters were obtained from published studies. Costs were presented in year 2019 values. Direct medical costs were retrieved from hospital database, while direct non-medical costs and utility were collected from interviewing 194 LACC patients during June to December 2019. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to investigate parameter uncertainties.Results: Total costs of NoIx were $8026 and $11,444 from provider and societal perspectives, respectively, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 3.70. NoIx was more effective and less costly. When six strategies were compared with NoIx, more additional costs were shown with $1835, $1735, $2022, $1987, $4002, and $4176 for CT without LL, CT with LL, MRI without LL, MRI with LL, PET/CT without LL, and PET/CT with LL, whereas QALYs were decreased with 0.07, 0.08, 0.07, 0.08, 0.05, and 0.07, respectively. Sensitivity analyses strengthened the benefit of NoIx. The most significant parameter was treatment outcomes of patients with PALN metastasis.Conclusion: NoIx or receiving basic clinical staging was a dominant option when compared with CT, MRI, and PET/CT for PALND before providing the treatment for LACC patients.Keywords: cost-utility analysis, stage IIIC2 cervical cancer, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, PET/CT

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess utility coefficients of health states following two minimally invasive surgical approaches for head and neck cancer, namely trans-oral robotic surgery and trans-oral laser microsurgery. Those utility coefficients will be later exploited in an economic evaluation study comparing the two approaches. Methods The above cited economic evaluation will be done from the Swiss healthcare system perspective and, as such, Swiss healthcare professionals were interviewed to elicit utility coefficients. Health states, ranging from remission to palliative care, were described using clinical vignettes. A computerized tool (UceWeb) implementing standard gamble and rating scale methods was used. Results Utility coefficients for 18 different health states were elicited with the two methods from 47 individuals, for a total of 1692 values. Elicited values varied from 0.980 to 0.213. Comparison with values elicited in previous studies show the need for population-specific elicitation, mainly for the worst health states. Conclusion Herein we report health utility coefficients for the Swiss population for health states following minimally invasive trans-oral surgery. This study provides utility values that can be used not only for a specific cost-utility analysis, but also for future studies involving the same health states.

Abstract Background Different approaches have been used by dentists to base their decision. Among them, there are the aesthetical issues that may lead to more interventionist approaches. Indeed, using a more interventionist strategy (the World Dental Federation - FDI), more replacements tend to be indicated than using a minimally invasive one (based on the Caries Around Restorations and Sealants—CARS). Since the resources related to the long-term health effects of these strategies have not been explored, the economic impact of using the less-invasive strategy is still uncertain. Thus, this health economic analysis plan aims to describe methodologic approaches for conducting a trial-based economic evaluation that aims to assess whether a minimally invasive strategy is more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy for managing restorations in primary teeth and extrapolating these findings to a longer time horizon. Methods A trial-based economic evaluation will be conducted, including three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one cost-utility analysis (CUA). These analyses will be based on the main trial (CARDEC-03/ NCT03520309 ), in which children aged 3 to 10 were included and randomized to one of the diagnostic strategies (based on FDI or CARS). An examiner will assess children’s restorations using the randomized strategy, and treatment will be recommended according to the same criteria. The time horizon for this study is 2 years, and we will adopt the societal perspective. The average costs per child for 24 months will be calculated. Three different cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) will be performed. For CEAs, the effects will be the number of operative interventions (primary CEA analysis), the time to these new interventions, the percentage of patients who did not need new interventions in the follow-up, and changes in children’s oral health-related quality of life (secondary analyses). For CUA, the effect will be tooth-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. Finally, we will assess the difference when using the minimally invasive strategy for each health effect (∆effect) compared to the conventional strategy (based on FDI) as the reference strategy. The same will be calculated for related costs (∆cost). The discount rate of 5% will be applied for costs and effects. We will perform deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to handle uncertainties. The net benefit will be calculated, and acceptability curves plotted using different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Using Markov models, a longer-term economic evaluation will be carried out with trial results extrapolated over a primary tooth lifetime horizon. Discussion The main trial is ongoing, and data collection is still not finished. Therefore, economic evaluation has not commenced. We hypothesize that conventional strategy will be associated with more need for replacements of restorations in primary molars. These replacements may lead to more reinterventions, leading to higher costs after 2 years. The health effects will be a crucial aspect to take into account when deciding whether the minimally invasive strategy will be more efficient in allocating resources than the conventional strategy when considering the management of restorations in primary teeth. Finally, patients/parents preferences and consequent utility values may also influence this final conclusion about the economic aspects of implementing the minimally invasive approach for managing restorations in clinical practice. Therefore, these trial-based economic evaluations may bring actual evidence of the economic impact of such interventions. Trial registration NCT03520309 . Registered May 9, 2018. Economic evaluations (the focus of this plan) are not initiated at the moment.

Maria-Isabel Valverde-Merino,1 Fernando Martinez-Martinez,1 Leticia Garcia-Mochon,2,3 Shalom I Benrimoj,1 Amaia Malet-Larrea,4 Beatriz Perez-Escamilla,1 Maria Jose Zarzuelo,1 Andrea Torres-Robles,5 Miguel Angel Gastelurrutia,1 Raquel Varas-Doval,6 Tamara Peiro Zorrilla,6 Victoria Garcia-Cardenas5 1Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Granada, Granada, Spain; 2Department of Management of Health Services and Professionals, Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain; 3CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; 4Medicines Information Centre, Official Pharmacist Association of Gipuzkoa, Donostia/San Sebastian, Spain; 5Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 6Pharmaceutical Care Services Department, General Pharmaceutical Council of Spain, Madrid, SpainCorrespondence: Maria-Isabel Valverde-MerinoPharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Granada Facultad de Farmacia, Campus de Cartuja s/n, Granada, 18071, SpainTel +34 958243827Email misabelvalverdemerino@gmail.comBackground: It is necessary to determine the cost utility of adherence interventions in chronic diseases due to humanistic and economic burden of non-adherence.Purpose: To evaluate, alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, the cost-utility of a pharmacist-led medication adherence management service (MAMS) compared with usual care in community pharmacies.Materials and Methods: The trial was conducted over six months. Patients with treatments for hypertension, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were included. Patients in the intervention group (IG) received a MAMS based on a brief complex intervention, whilst patients in the control group (CG) received usual care. The cost–utility analysis adopted a health system perspective. Costs related to medications, healthcare resources and adherence intervention were included. The effectiveness was estimated as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), using a multiple imputation missing data model. The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated on the total sample of patients.Results: A total of 1186 patients were enrolled (IG: 633; CG: 553). The total intervention cost was estimated to be € 27.33 ± 0.43 per patient for six months. There was no statistically significant difference in total cost of medications and healthcare resources per patient between IG and CG. The values of EQ-5D-5L at 6 months were significantly higher in the IG [IG: 0.881 ± 0.005 vs CG: 0.833 ± 0.006; p = 0.000]. In the base case, the service was more expensive and more effective than usual care, resulting in an ICUR of € 1,494.82/QALY. In the complete case, the service resulted in an ICUR of € 2,086.30/QALY, positioned between the north-east and south-east quadrants of the cost–utility plane. Using a threshold value of € 20,000/QALY gained, there is a 99% probability that the intervention is cost-effective.Conclusion: The medication adherence management service resulted in an improvement in the quality of life of the population with chronic disease, with similar costs compared to usual care. The service is cost-effective.Keywords: chronic disease, medication adherence, health-related quality of life, cost–utility analysis, community pharmacy services, pharmacoeconomics

Background Few studies address the cost of treating prolactinomas. We performed a cost-utility analysis of surgical versus medical treatment for prolactinomas. Materials and Methods We determined total hospital costs for surgically and medically treated prolactinoma patients. Decision-tree analysis was performed to determine which treatment produced the highest quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Outcome data were derived from published studies. Results Average total costs for surgical patients were $19,224 ( ± 18,920). Average cost for the first year of bromocriptine or cabergoline treatment was $3,935 and $6,042, with $2,622 and $4,729 for each additional treatment year. For a patient diagnosed with prolactinoma at 40 years of age, surgery has the lowest lifetime cost ($40,473), followed by bromocriptine ($41,601) and cabergoline ($70,696). Surgery also appears to generate high health state utility and thus more QALYs. In sensitivity analyses, surgery appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for prolactinomas across a range of ages, medical/surgical costs, and medical/surgical response rates, except when surgical cure rates are ≤ 30%. Conclusion Our single institution analysis suggests that surgery may be a more cost-effective treatment for prolactinomas than medical management for a range of patient ages, costs, and response rates. Direct empirical comparison of QALYs for different treatment strategies is needed to confirm these findings.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the economics of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, and to provide a reference for the formulation of relevant medical insurance policies and rational drug use.MethodsFrom the perspective of the Chinese health system, a three-state partitioned survival model was constructed based on data from a phase III randomized clinical trial (GEMSTONE 302) to evaluate the cost-utility of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Model results were expressed as total cost, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The robustness of the underlying analysis results was verified using one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsThe results of the base-case analysis showed that sugemalimab plus chemotherapy yielded 1.63 QALYs at a total cost of 130,667.70 USD, chemotherapy yielded 1.04 QALYs at a total cost of 64,001.02 USD, and the ICER was 113,155.52 USD/QALY, which was well above the current willingness-to-pay threshold in China (3 times 2021 per capita GDP) (36,203.88 USD).ConclusionThis study suggests that sugemalimab in combination with a chemotherapy regimen is more effective but not economical for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line therapy in China and that a reasonable reduction in drug prices could improve the probability of it being economical.

Background: Economic evaluation is used for the optimal allocation of resources in the health sector. While a large number of economic evaluation studies have been conducted, there is less critical review of these studies. We critically examined the economic evaluation studies of preventive health interventions. Methods: The study was carried out using critical review method. Seven databases (i.e., PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, and Elsevier) were searched to find articles on economic evaluation of health interventions published from 1985 to 2018. In addition, the references of retrieved studies were hand screened for articles that were not indexed in these databases. Finally, 206 articles, including 33 cost- benefit analysis, 146 cost- effectiveness analysis, and 27 cost- utility analysis were included in this study. These studies were critically evaluated using a checklist of 11 criteria. Results: Only 20% of the studies met all the methodological criteria of health economic evaluation. The cost perspective, costs type, cost data source, and cost measurement were not explained and discussed in 17%, 20%, 5%, and 33% of studies respectively. Outcome data sources and outcome valuation method were only mentioned in 53% and 69% of studies. The sensitivity analysis and results’ generalizability were not reported in 16% and 46% of studies. Conclusion: The quality of economic evaluation studies is low, and it can be misleading if resource allocation decisions are made using this evidence. Authors should use valid protocols to conduct and report economic evaluation studies, and journals’ editors should use valid checklists to evaluate these articles.

Abstract Background When dealing with the replacement of one missing tooth, the patient has the option of choosing between different types of treatment interventions. Several important factors play a role in his decision-making process, including his limited financial means and his efforts to solve the problem of missing teeth as effectively as possible. The main goal of the study is the economic-clinical evaluation of implant treatment, as a surgical-prosthetic method in dentistry, in case of replacement of one missing tooth of the molar area. Methods Cost-utility analysis from the patient's perspective is used for evaluation. The selected comparator is a purely prosthetic solution with the help of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Cost-utility analysis is modelled using Markov models, which consider a 30-year time horizon. Results Based on the results of modelling, the intervention evaluated by the patient, i.e. treatment with the help of implant-supported single crown, brings exactly 15.31 quality-adjusted prosthesis years (QAPY) after 30 years. The value of incremental cost-utility ratio amounted to USD − 1434. Conclusion The results of the cost-utility analysis suggest that implant treatment with an implant-supported single crown is more cost-effective than treatment with the three-unit fixed dental prosthesis.

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. The aim of the article is to analyse the cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact of talazoparib treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gBRCA + breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Analyses were based on the EMBRACA clinical trial and the model was constructed according to “partitioned survival analysis”. Two scenarios were considered in order to compare talazoparib with the alternatives of capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin: 1. Chemotherapy in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines/taxanes and, 2. A second- and subsequent-line treatment option. Treatment types following relapse were recorded in the mentioned clinical trial. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The average health cost of patients treated at 43 months with talazoparib was 84,360.86€, whilst current treatment costs were 26,683.90€. The effectiveness of talazoparib was 1.93 years of survival (1.09 QALY) relative to 1.58 years (0.83 QALY) in the treatment group. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 252,420.04€/QALY. This represents the additional cost required to earn an additional QALY when changing from regular treatment to talazoparib. Regarding budgetary impact, the number of patients susceptible to receiving treatment with between 94 and 202 talazoparib was estimated, according to scenario and likelihood. The 3-year cost difference was between 6.9 and 9 million euros. The economic evaluation conducted shows an elevated incremental cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact. Taking these results into account, the price of talazoparib would have to be lower than that taken as a reference to reach the cost-utility thresholds.

Abstract Background Aging population and other factors have led to a rapid rise in cancer incidence in China. However, under the influence of traditional perception of diseases, deaths and economic factors, many patients who are unresponsive to radical treatment are still adherent to excessive and unnecessary treatment, which may lead to poor quality of life (QoL) and increase unnecessary medical burden. Aim Compare the difference of the quality of life and cost-utility value between patients who received palliative care (PC) and patients who were adherent to conventional anticancer treatment (CAT) and provides empirical evidence of clinical and economic value for hospital-based PC. Methods Chinese Quality of Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) Scale was used to collect advanced cancer patients’ QoL on admission and discharge days. Paired and independent samples’ statistical analysis were used to compare inter- and intra- QoL between PC and CAT group. Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process were used to weight QoL scores and converted the QoL to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for 1:1 was used to compare average hospitalization expenses between two groups. The expense per QALYs was used for Cost-Utility analysis between the two treatments. Results A total of 248 hospitalized patients diagnosed with metastatic disease at stage IV were recruited from West China Fourth Hospital between January 2018 and August 2018, including 128 patients receiving PC and 120 patients receiving CAT. Although both treatments had positive effects on improving QoL for patients, the QoL in the PC group were significantly higher than that in the CAT group (55.90 ± 18.80 vs 24.00 ± 8.60, t = 7.51, p

Background: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.Objective: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.Methods: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.Results: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal.Conclusion: Health utility is a key input used to perform cost-utility analysis (CUA), which is increasingly used to inform resource allocation decisions.To identify the sources and elicitation methods of health utilities used in CUAs in oncology.We used the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry to identify oncology CUAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligible CUAs had to include an oncology population (based on ICD-10 codes), report health utilities, and be published in English. The references of cited health utilities were traced to identify the original health utility study and the method of utility elicitation. Characteristic of included CUAs were summarized and the methods to derive health utilities were compared.A total of 1512 CUAs in oncology were identified. The majority of CUAs (n = 1428, 94.4%) were model-based. Malignant neoplasm of breast and female genital organs was the most common population considered (n = 424, 28.0%). Among these CUAs, 8714 health utilities were identified. Upon review, the sources of 2096 (24.1%) health utilities could not be traced. Of the remaining 6618 health utilities, 1718 (26.0%) were obtained from original health utility study embedded in CUA in which expert opinion (n = 547, 31.8%) or EQ-5D (n = 479, 27.9%) was most frequently used. The 4900 health utilities (74.0%) that were cited from external studies were most often derived using the standard gamble (n = 1258, 25.7%) or EQ-5D (n = 1190, 24.3%).Published health utilities are widely used in oncology CUAs, especially for model-based analyses. However, the identification, selection, and use of health utilities is suboptimal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We reviewed 49 CUA articles in substance use disorder. • There is a lack of justification for selected health utilities in CUA. • Health economics modellers can use the HAT to assess health utility applicability. • We provide several suggestions and feedback for the HAT team to refine the tool. We aim to identify within-trial and modelled Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) in substance use disorders (SUD) and review the applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA. We searched Medline, Embase, EconLit and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) databases. A global systematic literature search was undertaken to determine the CUA of SUD interventions. Key characteristics of the studies and use of health utility were described. The applicability assessment associated with health utility used in modelled CUA was reviewed using The Health Utility Application Tool (HAT). The final review retrieved 49 CUA (14 within-trial and 35 modelled CUA). Three major health utility measurements were used - standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D. EQ-5D-5L was mainly used in within-trial CUA, whereas standard gamble, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were equally cited in modelled CUA and within-trial CUA. Twenty-nine articles using modelled CUA citing health utilities from published literature were assessed. Only half and one-third of CUA studies described the type of quality-of-life measure and value sets used in health utility studies, respectively. Only two-thirds showed the authors addressed questions about the similarities in clinical conditions, and health state description between health utility studies and economic evaluation studies. Justifications for chosen health utilities in modelled CUA studies were mostly absent in SUD. We suggested health economists use the HAT to make judgements when assessing health utility from published estimates. The use of this tool will increase the reliability of economic evaluation carried out to assist government and policymakers in making informed decisions around health topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Patients with portal hypertension are at serious risk of bleeding if they do not have access to appropriate follow-up. • Because of their unpleasantness, current techniques for screening and follow-up of esophageal varices can be a limitation to a proper management of patients. • For patients averse to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, capsule endoscopy remains more cost-effective than no screening at all. In France, screening for esophageal varices (EVs) in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension (PH) is performed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Though proven effective, EGD screening may be unpleasant for some patients. Our study sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of PillCam (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE), a less invasive test, versus EGD, for EV screening, from the perspective of the French national health system (NHS). In secondary objectives we compared the cost-effectiveness of ECE versus no screening for patients not compliant with EGD screening, and the cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy (ECE or EGD) versus no screening strategy at all. We constructed a Markov model with data from the literature, applying it to two simulated cohorts of adult patients with cirrhosis and PH not previously screened for EVs. These patients were divided into EGD and ECE screening arms and tracked over a virtual 10-year period. Cost-effectiveness was defined as cost (in euros) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In the base-case analysis, ECE is more expensive than EGD (€3,606 vs. €3,030) and less effective by 0.0098 QALY (5.2099 vs. 5.2197 QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that ECE has only a 2.1 % probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €30,000/QALY. Although patient compliance is apparently higher with ECE, it is not cost-effective at a WTP of €30,000/QALY and should not be considered in all patients with PH. Its cost-effectiveness should be reevaluated in the event of patient refusal of EGD follow-up. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is gold standard to screen cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension for esophageal varices, but its unpleasantness lowers compliance. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a more acceptable alternative for patients: the esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE). Our results show that screening by ECE is more expensive and less effective than by EGD from the perspective of the French national health system. It cannot be used as an alternative for all patients suffering from PH in France. Further investigations could be conducted to assess the effectiveness of ECE for the sub population of patients with PH who are totally refractory to EGD and may suffer from inadequate follow-up due to lack of screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different knee OA care sequences compared to standard treatment reimbursed by the major health insurance payer in Thailand. Method: We used decision analytical modeling to evaluate the effect of either adding etoricoxib or crystalline glucosamine sulfate compared to standard treatment from a societal perspective over patients' lifetimes. Data were analyzed based on efficacy, whereas adverse events were considered as a substate. Model input data were retrieved from relevant published literature and the Standard Cost Lists for Health Technology Assessment, Thailand. All health outcomes were measured in a unit of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was applied to examine the costs and QALYs. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the robustness of the model. Result: The results demonstrated that adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus proton pump inhibitors, PPI) into the standard care sequence was a dominant strategy compared to the standard care sequence. Adding etoricoxib alone or including crystalline glucosamine sulfate (after diclofenac plus PPI) was dominated by adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI), whereas in a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in Thailand, adding of both crystalline glucosamine sulfate (before diclofenac plus PPI) and etoricoxib were cost-effective when compared to adding crystalline glucosamine sulfate alone with ICER of 125,547 Thai baht/ QALY (3,472 US dollars/QALY). Conclusion: The addition of crystalline glucosamine sulfate and etoricoxib into standard knee OA treatment were cost-effective at the WTP threshold in Thailand. In addition, early initiation of crystalline glucosamine sulfate would be less costly andmore effective than delayed treatment or the use of standard treatment alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the cost-utility of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and insulin glargine U300 (IGlar U300) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods From the perspective of health system, based on the IQVIA CORE diabetes model, the long-term medical costs and health outcomes of treatment with IDeg, IGlar U100 and IGlar U300 were calculated and an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Health outcomes included life years and quality adjusted life year (QALY), and medical costs included drug cost, disease management cost and complication treatment cost. The price of insulin adopted the price of national volume-based procurement. The simulation model runs for 30 years at a discount rate of 5%. The robustness of the results was evaluated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Compared with the IGlar U100 group, the quality of life in IDeg group was gained by 0.060 QALY, the direct medical cost was increased by RMB 158 Yuan, and the ICER was RMB 2 639 Yuan/QALY. Compared with the IGlar U300 group, the quality of life in IDeg group was gained by 0.085 QALY, the direct medical cost was reduced by RMB 1 402 Yuan. Sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the results. Conclusions Compared with IGlar U100 and IGlar U300, IDeg was likely to be a cost-effective treatment in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Long-term oxygen therapy in COPD is usually supervised through home-care respiratory programs. Such programs often involve an intensive education intervention at the initiation of long-term oxygen therapy, followed by an extended follow-up period that aims toward home oxygen adherence. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness ratio of such a maintenance program. METHODS: A simulation model was developed that compared 2 strategies after the intensive education intervention: (1) enrollment and (2) no enrollment in a maintenance program. The study population consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 200 patients (100 patients per group; mean age, 74 years; 45% men; mean FEV1 of 43% predicted value; and mean resting P... while breathing air, 50 mm Hg). Effectiveness assumptions of the program were derived from a current literature review. The primary outcome was the ratio of the incremental cost of the program per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Only direct costs were considered; a health-care system perspective was adopted. Costs are reported in 2020 Canadian dollars (Can $). RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, an extended home-visit program may prevent 9 deaths and provide an additional 39 years of life and 24 quality-adjusted life- years. Compared with usual care (ie, no enrollment in the maintenance program), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was Can $17,197 per quality-adjusted life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the model. Only a reduction in adherence of 25% per year would increase the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-years beyond the threshold of Can $50,000 that is usually considered as acceptable from a health-care system perspective. CONCLUSIONS: An extended home-visit program to maintain or improve adherence to long-term oxygen therapy in patients with COPD would most likely be cost- effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several trials have demonstrated the benefit of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors for postmenopausal women with luminal advanced breast cancer. This research aims to compare the cost-utility of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors in patients with no history of resistance to endocrine therapy. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of treatments from the Brazilian public health system perspective over a lifetime horizon (30 years) with 5% annual discount rate for both benefits and costs. Efficacy parameters were extracted from the pivotal studies. Costs were based on open data from the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The utilities were calculated according to the overall population preferences from a British study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the results. The most cost-effective drug was ribociclib (US$50 748/QALY), followed by abemaciclib (US$64 052/QALY) and palbociclib (US$65 289/QALY). The univariate analysis showed that the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was mainly sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio. The one thousand–probabilistic simulation showed that all ICUR values were above classical thresholds such as 1 to 3 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY. Even though there is no established willingness to pay threshold in Brazil, the estimated ICUR for CDK 4/6 inhibitors is >6 times the Brazilian GDP per capita (GDP per capita = US$5694.73), which might be a barrier to their inclusion in the Brazilian public health system. • The current evidence about CDK 4/6 inhibitors for the treatment of advanced/metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women with no history of treatment failure with hormone therapy is limited to 4 clinical trials: 1 phase II (PALOMA-1) and 3 phase III trials, one for each technology. Besides that, new data from 2 studies have shown that CDK 4/6 inhibitors also improve overall survival in this population. • To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that presents an analysis of the cost-utility of the CDK 4/6 inhibitors from the Brazilian public health system perspective. • This study identified that the lowest cost-effective CDK 4/6 inhibitor has an estimated incremental cost-utility ratio 6 times the Brazilian gross domestic product. Nevertheless, given that CDK 4/6 inhibitors have comparable safety and efficacy profiles, the Brazilian Ministry of Health has an opportunity to negotiate with manufacturers a discount to the point of making these treatments an economically sustainable option for the Brazilian public health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of the Oxford, CoronaVac, and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. A total of 3 microsimulation models were constructed with individual data to evaluate the 3 vaccines. The simulation contains 7 transition states that are related to the natural history of the disease. The model with a daily cycle has a time horizon of 1 year and uses data from 289 days of the pandemic. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system considering direct medical costs. For the model inputs, outpatient and hospital databases were used with information on treated patients stratified by age. Information on mortality was also stratified based on patients' age in the mortality database (SIM). The efficacy of vaccines to reduce the likelihood of patients becoming ill was evaluated independently for each vaccine. Information on the quality of life of patients in outpatient or hospital treatment and the sequelae resulting from the disease were extracted from the literature. The main outcome of the analysis was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The vaccines showed incremental cost-utility ratios ranging from R$−23 161.3/QALY (Oxford) to R$17 757.85/QALY (CoronaVac). The older the population, the lower was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Given a willingness-to-pay threshold of R$17 586/QALY, all the vaccines were considered cost-effective in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results of the analysis by age group can help in the preparation of a vaccination prioritization plan. • This is the first economic evaluation performed with COVID-19 vaccines from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. • The analysis used real-world data on mortality and outpatient and hospital treatment, which represent the context of the first year of the pandemic in Brazil. • The study allowed for a comparison of the cost-utility ratios of 3 different vaccines used in Brazil, taking into account 3 age groups (<59, 60-75, and >75 years old), and demonstrating the impact of price and number of doses on the efficiency of health spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We modeled population genomic FH screening for cost-effectiveness. • Population FH genomic screening is not cost-effective at current willingness-to-pay. • Population genomic FH screening improves overall population health. • Lower genomic costs and/or multiplex screening are needed to be cost-effective. Population genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in unselected individuals can prevent premature cardiovascular disease. To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of population-wide FH genomic screening versus no genomic screening. We developed a decision tree plus 10-state Markov model evaluating the identification of patients with an FH variant, statin treatment status, LDL-C levels, MI, and stroke to compare the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of population-wide FH genomic screening. FH variant prevalence (0.4%) was estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode). Genomic test costs were assumed to be $200. Age and sex-based estimates of MI, recurrent MI, stroke, and recurrent stroke were obtained from Framingham risk equations. Additional outcomes independently associated with FH variants were derived from a retrospective analysis of 26,025 participants screened for FH. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. FH screening was most effective at younger ages; screening unselected 20-year-olds lead to 111 QALYs gained per 100,000 individuals screened at an incremental cost of $20 M. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for 20-year-olds was $181,000 per QALY, and there was a 38% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. If genomic testing cost falls to $100, the ICER would be $91,000 per QALY. Population FH screening is not cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds. However, reducing test costs, testing at younger ages, or including FH within broader multiplex screening panels may improve clinical and economic value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of eHealth in palliative care is scarce. Oncokompas, a fully automated behavioral intervention technology, aims to support self-management in cancer patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the eHealth application Oncokompas among incurably ill cancer patients, compared to care as usual. In this randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized into the intervention group (access to Oncokompas) or the waiting-list control group (access after three months). Healthcare costs, productivity losses, and health status were measured at baseline and three months. Intervention costs were also taken into account. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals around the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A probabilistic approach was used because of the skewness of cost data. Altogether, 138 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the intervention group (69) or the control group (69). In the base case analysis, mean total costs and mean total effects were non-significantly lower in the intervention group (−€806 and −0.01 QALYs). The probability that the intervention was more effective and less costly was 4%, whereas the probability of being less effective and less costly was 74%. Among patients with incurable cancer, Oncokompas does not impact incremental costs and seems slightly less effective in terms of QALYs, compared to care as usual. Future research on the costs of eHealth in palliative cancer care is warranted to assess the generalizability of the findings of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FH is still underdiagnosed. Cost-effectiveness results of preventive screening strategies vary. We aimed at systematically assessing the benefits, harms and cost effectiveness of screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and at providing an overview of the main characteristics and methodological approaches of applied decision-analytic models. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EconLit, CRD-databases and the CEA-registry for FH screening starting 2012. Earlier studies were included from a published systematic review. Results were reported in standardized semi-quantitative evidence tables. Costs were converted to current euros. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were recalculated according to economic guidelines. Out of our 211 retrieved studies, eight were included in the review in addition to six studies from an earlier review. Studies were conducted in Europe (UK, The Netherlands, Spain, Poland), USA and Australia evaluating cascade (CS), opportunistic (OS), universal screening (UniS), or combinations using genetic testing, clinical criteria or combinations. Studies evaluating only CS identified strategies with an ICER of up to 37,100 EUR/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) but some strategies were dominated depending on test combinations. UniS of newborns in combination with CS had an ICER≤15,000 EUR/QALY for sequential cholesterol-genetic screening. In other studies, UniS was dominated by OS/CS. Our systematic review demonstrates the values of FH screening and provides an overview of potentially relevant screening strategies to be tested using a decision-analytic model for the respective country or region. Future research is needed on the transferability of results to other countries and modeling spillover effects to newborns. [Display omitted] • Familial hypercholesterolemia is still underdiagnosed even if various screening strategies have been investigated/applied. • Many cascade-screening programs appear to be cost effective (at threshold <40,000 EUR/quality-adjusted life-year gained). • There is no consistent evidence on cost effectiveness of universal screening and opportunistic screening. • Future research is needed on transferability to other countries and modeling spillover effects to newborns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A cost-utility analysis study.Objective: This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of neoadjuvant teriparatide therapy in osteopenic patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.Summary Of Background Data: There is increasing evidence supporting preoperative use of anabolic agents such as teriparatide for preoperative optimization of ASD patients with poor bone density. However, such treatments are associated with added costs. To our knowledge, the cost-utility of teriparatide in osteopenic patients undergoing ASD surgery has not been established.Materials and Methods: A decision-analysis model was developed for a hypothetical 68-year-old female patient with osteopenia ( T score <-1.0) undergoing a T11 to pelvis instrumented spinal fusion for ASD. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to create estimates for event probabilities, costs, and quality adjusted life years at each node. Key model assumptions were that administration of a 4-month preoperative teriparatide course reduced 2-year postoperative reoperation rates [for pseudarthrosis from 5% to 2.5% and for proximal junctional failure (PJF) from 15% to 5%]. Monte Carlo simulations were used to calculate the mean incremental cost utility ratio and incremental net monetary benefits. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the contribution of individual parameters to uncertainty in the model.Results: Teriparatide was the favored strategy in 82% of the iterations. The mean incremental cost utility ratio for the teriparatide strategy was negative (higher net benefit, lower net cost), and lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality adjusted life year. Teriparatide use was associated with a mean incremental net monetary benefit of $3,948. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the factors with the greatest impact on the model were the incidence of PJF in the no teriparatide group, the duration and monthly cost of treatment, and the cost of reoperation due to PJF.Conclusions: Neoadjuvant teriparatide is a cost-effective strategy to reduce postoperative complications in patients with osteopenia undergoing ASD surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]