Generalized Cost-effectiveness Analysis Research Articles

Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.

This study argues that value assessment conducted from a societal perspective should rely on the Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) framework proposed herein. Recently developed value assessment inventories- such as the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness's "impact inventory" and International Society of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Research (ISPOR) "value flower"- aimed to more comprehensively capture the benefits and costs of new health technologies from a societal perspective. Nevertheless, application of broader value elements in practice has been limited in part because quantifying these elements can be complex, but also because there have been numerous methodological advances since these value inventories have been released (e.g. generalized and risk-adjusted cost effectiveness). To facilitate estimation of treatment value from a societal perspective, this paper provides an updated value inventory- called the GCEA value flower- and a user guide for implementing GCEAfor health economics researchers and practitioners. GCEA considers 15 broader value elements across four categories: (i)uncertainty, (ii) dynamics, (iii)beneficiary, and (iv) additional value components. The uncertainty category incorporates patient risk preferences into value assessment. The dynamics category petals account for the evolution of real-world treatment value (e.g. option value) and includes drug pricing trends (e.g. future genericization). The beneficiary category accounts for the fact health technologies can benefit others (e.g. caregivers) and also that society may care to whom health benefits accrue (e.g. equity). Finally, GCEA incorporates additional broader sources of value (e.g. community spillovers, productivity losses). This GCEA user guide aims to facilitate both the estimation of each of these value elements and the incorporation of these values into health technology assessment when conducted from a societal perspective.

Can Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Leverage Meaningful Use of Novel Value Elements in Pharmacoeconomics to Inform Medicare Drug Price Negotiation?

ObjectivesDecision makers considering using cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to inform health-technology assessment must contend with documented and controversial shortfalls of CEA, including its assumption of disease severity independence and static pricing. ISPOR has recently introduced novel value elements besides direct healthcare cost and effectiveness for the patient, and these should be captured in CEA. Although novel value elements advance our understanding of “what” should be measured (value of hope, severity of disease, health equity, etc), there is limited direction on “how” to measure them in conventional CEA. Furthermore, with Medicare empowered to set drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act, it is not clear what role CEA might have on where prices are set, given objections to the quality-adjusted life year in conventional approaches. MethodsWe critically reviewed the evidence for expanding conventional CEA methods to a more generalized approach of generalized CEA (GCEA). ResultsGCEA accounts for methods that address objections to the quality-adjusted life year and incorporate novel value elements. Although GCEA offers advantages, it also requires further research to develop “off-the-shelf” resources to help inform, for example, maximum fair price in the context of Medicare drug price negotiation. ConclusionsShould a shift toward GCEA reveal that the societal value of novel medicines exceeds their market-based costs, which will raise the key question of what market failure Medicare negotiation is meant to solve, if any, and therefore what the appropriate role of such negotiation might be to maximize the value society might garner from the development of novel medicines.

Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis to assess treatment value in hepatitis C.

To estimate the comprehensive value of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) compared with peginterferon alfa and ribavirin (PEG/riba) employing a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA). To assess the societal-level cost-effectiveness of DAA treatment for HCV, we extended a previously published discrete-time Markov simulation model of HCV transmission and progression to include market dynamics and broader elements of value. We followed a stepwise process to add novel value elements to a traditional CEA model for HCV treatments. For each additional element of value, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of DAAs compared with PEG/riba. The health technology assessment (HTA)-style model yielded an ICER value of $64,512 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Adding transmission dynamics resulted in an ICER value of $52,971 per QALY, whereas accounting for transmission dynamics and dynamic price and efficacy further decreased ICER values by 90% to $6406 per QALY. Incorporating genericization, productivity loss, caregiver spillover, and differential valuations of LYs vs quality of life, disease severity, and insurance value further decreased the ICER value to $4487 per QALY, a 93% reduction from the baseline HTA-style CEA to the fully realized GCEA. Our GCEA study results confirm that DAAs are a cost-effective treatment for HCV compared with PEG/riba even when using conventional cost-effectiveness approaches. Incorporating broader elements of value resulted in more than a 10-fold improvement in cost-effectiveness, emphasizing the substantive impact of a generalized approach and the importance of incorporating GCEAs into decision-making.

EE357 Implementing the Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) Approach – A Case Example in HCV Therapies

Implement the Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) framework (first introduced by Lakdawalla & Phelps (L&P, 2021)) to estimate the comprehensive value of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) compared to peginterferon alfa and ribavirin (PEG/riba), accounting for differential valuations of life years vs. quality of life (QoL), disease severity, and insurance value, in addition to other novel value elements of our generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA).

Evaluating the effectiveness of the safety experience room, an affordable interactive education intervention to prevent unintentional injury among rural preschoolers in China: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundInteractive and experiential learning programs have proven effective to teach children safety and prevent child unintentional injury. However, previously-published programs were designed primarily to address safety concerns of children living in urban, well-resourced areas, and therefore might be less effective or economically infeasible to distribute to children in resource-limited areas, such as those living in rural areas or underdeveloped regions. This proposed study will evaluate the effectiveness of teaching children safety lessons to rural preschoolers in China through the preschool-based Safety Experience Room intervention that was developed based on relevant theories, the lessons of previous intervention research, the characteristics of child injuries in underdeveloped rural areas, and the needs and circumstances of rural families and preschools in China. The study will also evaluate the cost-effectiveness of delivering the program.Methods and analysisA single-blinded, 12-month follow-up, parallel-group cluster randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio will be implemented in two selected counties. In total, at least 2378 rural preschoolers aged 3–6 years old will be recruited from 12 preschools, 6 in Yang County and 6 in Shicheng County. Clusters will be randomized at the preschool level and allocated to the control group (routine school-based education) or the intervention group (routine school-based education plus the Safety Experience Room education). External support strategies will be implemented by local partners to minimize attrition. Data collection will be conducted at baseline and then every 3 months during a 12-month follow-up time period. Intention-to-treat (ITT) data analysis will be used. Generalized estimation equations (GEE) will evaluate the effectiveness of the program and generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of it. A per-protocol (PP) sensitivity analysis will assess the robustness of ITT results. Subgroup analyses will be performed to evaluate the impact of socio-demographic factors on the intervention effect, following the same strategies as the primary analyses.DiscussionThe newly-designed Safety Experience Room program is expected to be feasible, effective, and financially beneficial. If these hypotheses prove true, we will take steps to disseminate the program to rural preschools across China.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn), CHiCTR2000038025, registered on 8 September 2020.

Cost-Effectiveness of Population Level and Individual Level Interventions to Combat Non-communicable Disease in Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia: A WHO-CHOICE Analysis.

Background: To determine the health system costs and health-related benefits of interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including mental health disorders, for the purpose of identifying the most cost-effective intervention options in support of global normative guidance on the best-buy interventions for NCDs. In addition, tools are developed to allow country contextualisation of the analyses to support local priority setting exercises. Methods: This analysis follows the standard WHO-CHOICE (World Health Organization-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective) approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. The scope of the analysis is all NCD and mental health interventions included in WHO guidelines or guidance documents for which the health impact of the intervention is able to be identified and attributed. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, both for a period of 100 years. Results: There are many interventions for NCD prevention and management that are highly cost-effective, generating one year of healthy life for less than Int. $100. These interventions include tobacco and alcohol control policies such as taxation, voluntary and legislative actions to reduce sodium intake, mass media campaigns for reducing physical activity, and treatment options for cardiovascular disease (CVD), cervical cancer and epilepsy. In addition a number of interventions fall just outside this range, including breast cancer, depression and chronic lung disease treatment. Conclusion: Interventions that represent good value for money, are technically feasible and are delivered for a low per-capita cost, are available to address the rapid rise in NCDs in low- and middle-income countries. This paper also describes a tool to support countries in developing NCD action plans.

Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Outcomes: A WHO-CHOICE Analysis for Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia.

Background: Information on cost-effectiveness allows policy-makers to evaluate if they are using currently available resources effectively and efficiently. Our objective is to examine the cost-effectiveness of health interventions to improve maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH) outcomes, to provide global evidence relative to the context of two geographic regions. Methods: We consider interventions across the life course from adolescence to pregnancy and for children up to 5 years old. Interventions included are those that fall within the areas of immunization, child healthcare, nutrition, reproductive health, and maternal/newborn health, and for which it is possible to model impact on MNCH mortality outcomes using the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to derive average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) for individual interventions and combinations (packages). Costs were assessed from the health system perspective and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes were estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. The model was run for 2 regions: Eastern sub-Saharan Africa (SSA-E) and South-East Asia (SEA). Results: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended interventions to improve MNCH are generally considered cost-effective, with the majority of interventions demonstrating ACERs below I$100/HLY saved in the chosen settings (low-and middle-income countries [LMICs]). Best performing interventions are consistent across the two regions, and include family planning, neonatal resuscitation, management of pneumonia and neonatal infection, vitamin A supplementation, and measles vaccine. ACERs below I$100 can be found across all delivery platforms, from community to hospital level. The combination of interventions into packages (such as antenatal care) produces favorable ACERs. Conclusion: Within each region there are interventions which represent very good value for money. There are opportunities to gear investments towards high-impact interventions and packages for MNCH outcomes. Cost-effectiveness tools can be used at national level to inform investment cases and overall priority setting processes.

Progressive Realisation of Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Beyond the "Best Buys".

Background: World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO CHOICE) has been a programme of the WHO for 20 years. In this latest update, we present for the first time a cross-programme analysis of the comparative cost-effectiveness of 479 intervention scenarios across 20 disease programmes and risk factors. Methods: This analysis follows the standard WHO CHOICE approach to generalized cost-effectiveness analysis applied to two regions, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. The scope of the analysis is all interventions included in programme specific WHO CHOICE analyses, using WHO treatment guidelines for major disease areas as the foundation. Costs are measured in 2010 international dollars, and benefits modelled beginning in 2010, or the nearest year for which validated data was available, both for a period of 100 years. Results: Across both regions included in the analysis, interventions span multiple orders of magnitude in terms of cost-effectiveness ratios. A health benefit package optimized through a value for money lens incorporates interventions responding to all of the main drivers of disease burden. Interventions delivered through first level clinical and non-clinical services represent the majority of the high impact cost-effective interventions. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness is one important criterion when selecting health interventions for benefit packages to progress towards universal health coverage (UHC), but it is not the only criterion and all calculations should be adapted to the local context. To support country decision-makers, WHO CHOICE has developed a downloadable tool to support the development of data for this criterion.

Priority Setting in HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria - New Cost-Effectiveness Results From WHO-CHOICE.

Background: This paper forms part of an update of the World Health Organization Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) programmes. It provides an assessment of global health system performance during the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010) with respect to allocative efficiency in HIV, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria control, thereby shining a spotlight on programme development and scale up in these Millennium Development Goal (MDG) priority areas; and examining the cost-effectiveness of selected best-practice interventions and intervention packages commonly in use during that period. Methods: Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis (GCEA) was used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the selected interventions. Impact modelling was performed using the OpenMalaria platform for malaria and using the Goals and TIME (TB Impact Model and Estimates) models in Spectrum for HIV and TB. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included and reported in international dollars. Health outcomes are estimated and reported as the gain in healthy life years (HLYs) due to the specific intervention or combination. Analysis was restricted to eastern sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Results: At the reference year of 2010, commonly used interventions for HIV, TB and malaria were cost-effective, with cost-effectiveness ratios less than I$ 100/HLY saved for virtually all interventions included. HIV, TB and malaria prevention and treatment interventions are highly cost-effective and can be implemented through a phased approach to full coverage to achieve maximum health benefits and contribute to the progressive elimination of these diseases. Conclusion: During the first decade of the 21st century (2000-2010), the global community has done well overall for HIV, TB, and malaria programmes as regards both economic efficiency and programmatic selection criteria. The role of international assistance, financial and technical, arguably was critical to these successes. As the global community now tackles the challenge of universal health coverage, this analysis can reinforce commitment to Sustainable Development Goal targets but also the importance of continued focus on these critical programme areas.

Cost-effectiveness of a mobile-phone text messaging intervention on type 2 diabetes—A randomized-controlled trial

AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mobile phone text messaging program for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MethodsWe performed a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis in a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh. Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized (1:1) to a text messaging intervention plus standard-care or standard-care alone. Intervention participants received a text message daily for 6 months encouraging healthy lifestyles. Costs to users and the health systems were measured. The EQ-5D-3L was used to measure improvements in health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intervention costs were expressed as average cost-effectiveness ratios (cost-per 1% unit-reduction in glycated haemoglobin HbA1c and cost per QALY gained), based on the World Health Organization cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE) method. ResultsIn 236 patients [mean age 48 (SD9.6) years] the adjusted difference in accumulated QALYs between the intervention and the control group over the 6-month period was 0.010 (95%CI: 0.000; 0.021). Additional costs per-patient averaged 24 international dollars (Intl.$), resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 38 Intl.$ per % glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction and 2406 Intl.$ per QALY gained. The total intervention costs for the mobile phone text messaging program was 2842 Int.$. ConclusionText messaging might be a valuable addition to standard treatment for diabetes care in low-resource settings and predicted to lead an overall saving in health systems costs. Studies with longer follow-up and larger samples are needed to draw reliable conclusions.

Cost-effective interventions for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer: new results from WHO-CHOICE

BackgroundFollowing the adoption of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013–2020, an update to the Appendix 3 of the action plan was requested by Member States in 2016, endorsed by the Seventieth World Health Assembly in May 2017 and provides a list of recommended NCD interventions. The main contribution of this paper is to present results of analyses identifying how decision makers can achieve maximum health gain using the cancer interventions listed in the Appendix 3. We also present methods used to calculate new WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness results for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer in Southeast Asia and eastern sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsWe used “Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis” for our analysis which uses a hypothetical null reference case, where the impacts of all current interventions are removed, in order to identify the optimal package of interventions. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included. Health outcomes are reported as the gain in healthy life years due to a specific intervention scenario and were estimated using a deterministic state-transition cohort simulation (Markov model).ResultsVaccination against human papillomavirus (two doses) for 9–13-year-old girls (in eastern sub-Saharan Africa) and HPV vaccination combined with prevention of cervical cancer by screening of women aged 30–49 years through visual inspection with acetic acid linked with timely treatment of pre-cancerous lesions (in Southeast Asia) were found to be the most cost effective interventions. For breast cancer, in both regions the treatment of breast cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± systemic therapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. For colorectal cancer, treatment of colorectal cancer, stages I and II, with surgery ± chemotherapy and radiotherapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention.ConclusionThe results demonstrate that cancer prevention and control interventions are cost-effective and can be implemented through a step-wise approach to achieve maximum health benefits. As the global community moves toward universal health coverage, this analysis can support decision makers in identifying a core package of cancer services, ensuring treatment and palliative care for all.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Pilot Neonatal Screening Program for Sickle Cell Anemia in the Republic of Angola

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a pilot newborn screening (NBS) and treatment program for sickle cell anemia (SCA) in Luanda, Angola. In July 2011, a pilot NBS and treatment program was implemented in Luanda, Angola. Infants identified with SCA were enrolled in a specialized SCA clinic in which they received preventive care and sickle cell education. In this analysis, the World Health Organization (WHO) and generalized cost-effectiveness analysis methods were used to estimate gross intervention costs of the NBS and treatment program. To determine healthy life-years (HLYs) gained by screening and treatment, we assumed NBS reduced mortality to that of the Angolan population during the first 5 years based upon WHO and Global Burden of Diseases Study 2010 estimates, but provided no significant survival benefit for children who survive through age 5 years. A secondary sensitivity analysis with more conservative estimates of mortality benefits also was performed. The costs of downstream medical costs, including acute care, were not included. Based upon the costs of screening 36,453 infants and treating the 236 infants with SCA followed after NBS in the pilot project, NBS and treatment program is projected to result in the gain of 452-1105 HLYs, depending upon the discounting rate and survival assumptions used. The corresponding estimated cost per HLY gained is $1380-$3565, less than the gross domestic product per capita in Angola. These data demonstrate that NBS and treatment for SCA appear to be highly cost-effective across all scenarios for Angola by the WHO criteria.

Cost-effectiveness in goal-directed therapy: are the dollars spent worth the value?

HEALTHCARE FINANCING has become a fixed agenda of international discussions on health policy. An aging population coupled with an insatiable demand for new and costly medical technology pose an unpredictable challenge for future healthcare funding. 1 Jurd A: Expenditures on healthcare in the UK, 1997-2010. Office for National Statistics. 2012. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_264293.pdf. Google Scholar , 2 OECD: Health data 2013 (online) Health expenditures, OECD Publishing. Available at: http://www.compareyourcountry.org/health/health-spending-change?cr=oecd&lg=en. Accessed on May 10, 2014 Google Scholar , 3 Anderson G. Frogner B. Johns R. et al. Health care spending and use of information technology in OECD countries. Health Affairs. 2006; 25: 819-831 Google Scholar Under such economic pressure, policymakers are expected to deliver cost-containment solutions for efficient and sustainable healthcare provision. On first sight, this idea seems to conflict with the clinicians’ main concern of delivering comprehensive care to the patients, who then often dismiss the positive effect of careful resource allocation on long-term care provision and, consequently, on the overall good to society. 4 Higgins A. Harris A. Health economic methods: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit evaluation. Crit Care Clin. 2012; 28: 11-24 Google Scholar Cost-effectiveness analysis combines both principles by pooling clinical and economic benefit before suggesting sustainable strategies of effective resource allocation. 5 Weinstein M. Siegel J. Gold M. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2006; 276: 3353-3358 Google Scholar , 6 Weinstein M. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practice. N Engl J Med. 1977; 296: 716-721 Google Scholar , 7 Murray C.J. Evans D.B. Acharya A. et al. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000; 9: 235-251 Google Scholar In this paper, the authors review the available literature on cost-effectiveness analysis and goal-directed therapy (GDT).

PHS65 - Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For Care Of Major Cancers And Other Major Illnesses In Taiwan

PHS65 - Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For Care Of Major Cancers And Other Major Illnesses In Taiwan

The Use of Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis for Pediatric Immunization in Developing Countries

Developing countries face critical choices for introducing needed, effective, but expensive new vaccines, especially given the accelerated need to decrease the mortality of children under age five and the increased immunization resources available from international donors. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a tool that decision makers can use for efficiently allocating expanding resources. Its use in developing countries, however, lags behind that in industrialized countries. We explored how CEA could be made more relevant to immunization policymaking in developing countries by identifying the limitations for using CEA in developing countries and the impact of donor funding on the CEA estimation. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using formal search protocols and hand searching indexed and gray literature sources. We then systematically summarized the application of CEA in industrialized and developing countries through thematic analysis, focusing on pediatric immunization and methodological and contextual issues relevant to developing countries. Industrialized and developing countries use CEA differently. The use of the Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) outcome measure and an alternative generalized cost-effectiveness analysis approach is restricted to developing countries. In pediatric CEAs, the paucity of evaluations and the lack of attention to overcoming the methodological limitations pertinent to children's cognitive and development distinctiveness, such as discounting and preference characterization, means that pediatric interventions may be systematically understudied and undervalued. The ability to generate high-quality CEA evidence in child health is further threatened by an inadequate consideration of the impact of donor funding (such as GAVI immunization funding) on measurement uncertainty and the determination of opportunity cost. Greater attention to pediatric interventions and donor funding in the conduct of CEA could lead to better policies and thus more worthwhile and good-value programs to benefit children's health in developing countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for Reducing Road Traffic Injuries Related to Driving under the Influence of Alcohol

ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce road traffic injuries caused by driving under the influence of alcohol in Thailand. MethodsWe used generalized cost-effectiveness analysis and included costs from a health sector perspective. The model considered road traffic crash victims who were injured, disabled, or died. We obtained proportions of alcohol-related crashes from the Thai Injury Surveillance system. Intervention effectiveness was derived from published reviews and a study in one province of Thailand. Random breath testing, selective breath testing, and mass media campaigns, both current and intervention scenarios, were compared with a “do-nothing” scenario. We calculated intervention costs and cost offsets of prevented treatment costs in 2004 Thai baht (US $1 = 41 baht) and measured benefits in terms of disability-adjusted life-years averted. Interventions with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below 110,000 Thai baht (1×gross domestic product per capita) per disability-adjusted life-year (US $2,680) were considered very cost-effective. ResultsCompared with doing nothing, mass media campaigns, random breath testing, and selective breath testing are all cost saving. When averted treatment costs are ignored and only intervention costs are included, all three interventions are very cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 10,300, 14,300 and 13,000 baht/disability-adjusted life-year, respectively. The current mix of mass media campaigns and sobriety checkpoints is therefore also cost-effective, but underinvestment in checkpoints limits its overall effect. ConclusionsA greater intensity of conducting sobriety checkpoints in Thailand is recommended to complement the investment in mass media campaigns. Together these interventions have the potential to reduce the burden of alcohol-related road traffic injuries by 24%.

Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmaceutical Interventions for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Thailand

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of blood pressure (BP)-lowering and cholesterol-lowering drugs for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. MethodsWe constructed a Markov model in which the Thai population was classified by 10-year absolute CVD risk and modeled the use of BP- and cholesterol-lowering drugs, including a “polypill” (three BP-lowering drugs and a statin). We applied “do-nothing” as the comparator, a health sector perspective on lifetime cost-effectiveness, 3% discounting of costs and effects, and used probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Outcomes are expressed as average and incremental cost-effectiveness in Thai baht per disability-adjusted life-year averted. ResultsThe polypill would be a very cost-effective option for CVD prevention even in people at modest risk (10-year risk of 5%–9.9%). Use of the three most cost-effective BP drugs is also associated with a net cost saving and large health gain at risk levels greater than 5%. Adding a generic statin gives a price per disability-adjusted life-year of 0.5 (10-year risk at 20%+) to 1.5 (10-year risk at 5%–9.9%) times Thai per-capita gross domestic product using lowest available annual costs. However, at current average drug prices, adding a statin would be considered cost-effective only for those with a 10-year absolute CVD risk of 20% and more. ConclusionsPrimary CVD prevention with the polypill or a combination of three generic BP-lowering drugs is very cost-effective in the Thai population.

Abstract SY26-01: Screening and cancer prevention in underdeveloped environments: A global view

Abstract SY26-01: Screening and cancer prevention in underdeveloped environments: A global view

Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis.

BackgroundRegional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented.MethodsStandardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs.ResultsIn regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others.In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective.In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment.ConclusionsFrom a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage.

Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer—A global and regional generalized cost-effectiveness analysis

The paper calculates regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of screening, prevention, treatment and combined interventions for cervical cancer. Using standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology, a cervical cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening, vaccination and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs. In regions characterized by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of any screening programme to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective. However, based on projections of the future price per dose (representing the economic costs of the vaccination excluding monopolistic rents and vaccine development cost) vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention. In regions characterized by low income, low mortality and existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without combining it with screening appears to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening in a no-treatment scenario would not be cost-effective. Vaccination is usually the most cost-effective intervention. Penta or tri-annual PAP smears appear to be cost-effective, though when combined with HPV-DNA testing they are not cost-effective. In regions characterized by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, expanding treatment with or without adding screening would be very cost-effective. A one off vaccination plus expanding treatment was usually very cost-effective. One-off PAP or VIA screening at age 40 are more cost-effective than other interventions though less effective overall. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, consideration should be given to implementing vaccination (depending on cost per dose and longevity of efficacy) and screening programmes on a worldwide basis to reduce the burden of disease from cervical cancer. Treatment should also be increased where coverage is low.