Model-based Economic Evaluations Research Articles

Cost and Utility Estimates per Modified Rankin Scale Score up to 2 Years Post Stroke: Data to Inform Economic Evaluations From a Societal Perspective

ObjectivesModel-based health economic evaluations of ischemic stroke are in need of cost- and utility estimates related to relevant outcome measures. This study aims to describe societal cost- and utility estimates per modified Rankin Scale (mRS)-score at different time points within 2 years post stroke. MethodsIncluded patients had a stroke between 3 months and 2.5 years ago. mRS and EQ-5D-5L were scored during a telephone interview. Based on the interview date, records were categorized into a time point: 3 months (3M; 3-6 months), 1 year (Y1; 6-18 months), or 2 years (Y2; 18-30 months). Patients completed a questionnaire on healthcare utilization and productivity losses in the previous 3 months. Initial stroke hospitalization costs were assessed. Mean costs and utilities per mRS and time point were derived with multiple imputation nested in bootstrapping. Cost at 3 months post stroke were estimated separately for endovascular treatment (EVT)-/non-EVT-patients. Results1106 patients were included from 18 Dutch centers. At each time point, higher mRS-scores were associated with increasing average costs and decreasing average utility. Mean societal costs at 3M ranged from €11 943 (mRS 1, no EVT) to €55 957 (mRS 5, no EVT). For Y1, mean costs in the previous 3 months ranged from €885 (mRS 0) to €23 215 (mRS 5), and from €1655 (mRS 0) to €22 904 (mRS 5) for Y2. Mean utilities ranged from 0.07 to 0.96, depending on mRS and time point. ConclusionsThe mRS-score is a major determinant of costs and utilities at different post-stroke time points. Our estimates may be used to inform future model-based health economic evaluations.

Systematic Review of Outcomes for Assessment of Medication Adherence Enhancing Interventions: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

ObjectivesThe lack of universal guidance on outcome measures for evaluating medication adherence enhancing interventions (MAEIs) poses a challenge for assessing their effectiveness. This literature review aimed to provide a systematic overview of outcome measures currently used for the value assessment of MAEIs. MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete for randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, prospective cohort studies, model-based economic evaluations, and value frameworks published in English between January 2010 and September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review. Due to the large number of relevant studies, data extraction was limited to articles published between January 2018 and September 2020. We collected data on the general characteristics of the study, the type of intervention, and the outcomes measured. ResultsWe screened 14 685 records and identified 308 articles for data extraction. Behavioral interventions were the most common (n = 143), followed by educational interventions (n = 110) and mixed-method interventions (n = 73). Outcomes were clustered into 7 categories with medication adherence (n = 286) being the most frequently measured, followed by clinical outcomes (n = 155), health-related quality of life (n = 57), resource use (n = 43), patient satisfaction (n = 31), economic outcomes (n = 18), and other outcomes (n = 76). ConclusionsVarious outcomes measures have been used to evaluate MAEIs, with only a small number of studies exploring economic and patient-reported outcomes. Future research is warranted to develop a consensus-based set of criteria for assessing MAEIs to facilitate the comparison of interventions and enable informed decision making.

Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations

ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Study Design and SettingWe evaluated a random sample of health economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE during 2019. We included articles written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years, and/or disability-adjusted life years. Reproducible research practices, openness, and transparency in each article were extracted in duplicate. We explored whether reproducible research practices were associated with self-report use of a guideline. ResultsWe included 200 studies published in 147 journals. Almost half were published as open access articles (n = 93; 47%). Most studies (n = 150; 75%) were model-based economic evaluations. In 109 (55%) studies, authors self-reported use a guideline (e.g., for study conduct or reporting). Few studies (n = 31; 16%) reported working from a protocol. In 112 (56%) studies, authors reported the data needed to recreate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis. This percentage was higher in studies using a guideline than studies not using a guideline (72/109 [66%] with guideline vs. 40/91 [44%] without guideline; risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.97). Only 10 (5%) studies mentioned access to raw data and analytic code for reanalyses. ConclusionTransparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in the field.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BackgroundThe increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.MethodsWe searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, − 1 and − 2 to each risk category, respectively.ResultsIn our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to − 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.ConclusionsWhile most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC. We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies. Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients’ functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost–utility analyses (CUAs).The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs’ results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost–benefit analyses, 12 cost–consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

P13 Cost effectiveness of point of care diagnostics for AMR: a systematic review

Abstract Objectives Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to global health and is driven partly by overprescription of antibiotics. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) can reduce antibiotic prescribing by distinguishing different types of infections and the sensitivities of pathogens to antimicrobials. Although evidence for their clinical efficacy is mixed, they may be highly cost-effective interventions when their benefits in reducing the burden of AMR are considered. We aimed to systematically evaluate the cost effectiveness of different POCTs in reducing AMR for the first time to inform national and global health policies. Methods A systematic review was conducted in line with the PRISMA framework, and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched from January 2000 to November 2022 for studies that (i) were trial- or model-based economic evaluations, (ii) focused on POCTs aimed at reducing AMR or inappropriate antimicrobial prescription, (iii) included a cost-benefit metric and (iv) were original research written in English with full text available. Methodological quality was assessed using the Consensus of Health Economic Criteria. Results 157 studies were retrieved of which 20 were included after screening. These included both trial (n = 9) and modelling-based (n = 11) evaluations. Most focused on POCTs for respiratory infections (n = 9) with sexually transmitted infections and febrile illness other common conditions evaluated. A majority of studies utilized C-reactive protein POCTs (n = 11) with others utilizing pathogen-specific PCR tests or procalcitonin. Most evaluated the cost effectiveness of POCTs at reducing antimicrobial prescribing, with only 3 studies considering the societal cost of AMR. Most studies found that POCTs reduced antibiotic use, but with varying cost effectiveness: 16 studies showed cost efficacy by the threshold or other standards stipulated by the study, with POCTs for group B streptococcus and urinary tract infections notably not found to be cost effective. The reporting and methodological quality of the included studies was mixed: good (4), moderate (13) and low (3). Conclusions There is limited research on the cost effectiveness of POCTs in reducing AMR, and most studies do not account for the wider societal costs of AMR. Current forecasts estimate that AMR will cause 10 million deaths and cost the world 100 trillion USD per year in 2050: consequently, it is vital that evaluations of POCTs include the significant benefits from reducing AMR additional to the short-term benefits of avoided antibiotic prescriptions. Given the rising burden of AMR, such interventions merit further evaluation and integration into healthcare policy.

EE278 A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Cervical Cancer Screening Methods

Cervical cancer screening is a public health priority with the potential to improve pre-cancerous lesion detection in high-risk females for disease prevention. The objective of the systematic review was to identify primary and model-based economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods, and to provide a contextual summary of valuation outcomes associated with three types of cervical cancer screening tests: Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid, Human Papilloma Virus Deoxyribonucleic Acid, and Papanicolaou Smear.

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Are intersectoral costs considered in economic evaluations of interventions relating to sexually transmitted infections (STIs)? A systematic review

Background/objectiveSexually transmitted infections (STIs) not only have an impact on the health sector but also the private resources of those affected, their families and other sectors of society (i.e. labour, education). This study aimed to i) review and identify economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs, which aimed to include a societal perspective; ii) analyse the intersectoral costs (i.e. costs broader than healthcare) included; iii) categorise these costs by sector; and iv) assess the impact of intersectoral costs on the overall study results.MethodsSeven databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit and NHS EED. Key search terms included terms for economic evaluation, STIs and specific infections. This review considered trial- and model-based economic evaluations conducted in an OECD member country. Studies were included that assessed intersectoral costs. Intersectoral costs were extracted and categorised by sector using Drummond’s cost classification scheme (i.e. patient/family, productivity, costs in other sectors). A narrative synthesis was performed.ResultsTwenty-nine studies qualified for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Twenty-eight studies applied a societal perspective of which 8 additionally adopted a healthcare or payer perspective, or both. One study used a modified payer perspective. The following sectors were identified: patient/family, informal care, paid labour (productivity), non-paid opportunity costs, education, and consumption. Patient/family costs were captured in 11 studies and included patient time, travel expenses, out-of-pocket costs and premature burial costs. Informal caregiver support (non-family) and unpaid help by family/friends was captured in three studies. Paid labour losses were assessed in all but three studies. Three studies also captured the costs and inability to perform non-paid work. Educational costs and future non-health consumption costs were each captured in one study. The inclusion of intersectoral costs resulted in more favourable cost estimates.ConclusionsThis systematic review suggests that economic evaluations of interventions relating to STIs that adopt a societal perspective tend to be limited in scope. There is an urgent need for economic evaluations to be more comprehensive in order to allow policy/decision-makers to make better-informed decisions.

Cost-effectiveness models for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: IPECAD modeling workshop cross-comparison challenge.

The credibility of model-based economic evaluations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is central to appropriate decision-making in a policy context. We report on the International PharmacoEconomic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Modeling Workshop Challenge. Two common benchmark scenarios, for the hypothetical treatment of AD mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia, were developed jointly by 29 participants. Model outcomes were summarized, and cross-comparisons were discussed during a structured workshop. A broad concordance was established among participants. Mean 10-year restricted survival and time in MCI in the control group ranged across 10 MCI models from 6.7 to 9.5 years and 3.4 to 5.6 years, respectively; and across 4 mild dementia models from 5.4 to 7.9 years (survival) and 1.5 to 4.2 years (mild dementia). The model comparison increased our understanding of methods, data used, and disease progression. We established a collaboration framework to assess cost-effectiveness outcomes, an important step toward transparent and credible AD models.

The Cost of Neurodevelopmental Disability: Scoping Review of Economic Evaluation Methods.

The provision of effective care models for children with neurodevelopmental delay or disability can be challenging in resource constrained healthcare systems. Economic evaluations have an important role in informing resource allocation decisions. This review systematically examined the scope and methods of economic models evaluating interventions for supporting neurodevelopment among children with common neurodevelopmental disorders and identified methods of economic models and presented policy implications. This scoping review employed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Four electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible model-based economic evaluations of neurodevelopmental care models published since 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess quality of reporting. Data were systematically extracted, tabulated, and qualitatively synthesised across diagnostic categories. Searches identified 1431 unique articles. Twelve studies used a decision analytic model to evaluate care for neurodevelopmental disorders and were included in the review. Included studies focused on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, n=6), autism spectrum disorder (ASD, n=3), cerebral palsy (n=2), and dyslexia (n=1). The most used decision analytic modelling approach was a Markov model (n=6), followed by a decision tree (n=3), and a combination of decision tree and Markov model (n=3). Most studies (n=7) adopted a societal perspective for reporting costs. None of the reviewed studies modelled impact on families and caregivers. Four studies reported cost-savings, three identified greater quality of life, and three identified cost increases.

The Primary Process and Key Concepts of Economic Evaluation in Healthcare.

Economic evaluations in the healthcare are used to assess economic efficiency of pharmaceuticals and medical interventions such as diagnoses and medical procedures. This study introduces the main concepts of economic evaluation across its key steps: planning, outcome and cost calculation, modeling, cost-effectiveness results, uncertainty analysis, and decision-making. When planning an economic evaluation, we determine the study population, intervention, comparators, perspectives, time horizon, discount rates, and type of economic evaluation. In healthcare economic evaluations, outcomes include changes in mortality, the survival rate, life years, and quality-adjusted life years, while costs include medical, non-medical, and productivity costs. Model-based economic evaluations, including decision tree and Markov models, are mainly used to calculate the total costs and total effects. In cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses, cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the additional cost per one additional unit of effectiveness gained by an intervention compared with a comparator. All outcomes have uncertainties owing to limited evidence, diverse methodologies, and unexplained variation. Thus, researchers should review these uncertainties and confirm their robustness. We hope to contribute to the establishment and dissemination of economic evaluation methodologies that reflect Korean clinical and research environment and ultimately improve the rationality of healthcare policies.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods

ObjectiveThe aims of this systematic review were to (1) identify primary- and model-based economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods and to (2) provide a contextual summary of valuation outcomes associated with three types of cervical cancer screening tests: visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid, and Papanicolaou smear.IntroductionCervical cancer screening is an important public health priority with the potential to improve the detection of precancerous lesions in high-risk females for early intervention and disease prevention. Test performance and cost-effectiveness differ based on the specific screening method used across different platforms. There is a need to appraise existing economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.MethodsThis review considered primary-based and model-based full economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods. The evaluation methods of interest included cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-minimization analysis, cost–benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. We searched Scopus, PubMed, National Health Economic Evaluation Database (NH EED), Cochrane, and the Health Economic Evaluation Database for full economic evaluations of cancer screening methods. No formal date restrictions were applied. Model-based and primary-based full economic evaluations were included. A critical appraisal of included studies was performed by the main investigator, while a second independent reviewer assessed critical appraisal findings for any inconsistencies. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction tool for economic evaluations. The ultimate outcomes of costs, effectiveness, benefits, and utilities of cervical cancer screening modalities were extracted from included studies, analysed, and summarised.ResultsFrom a total of 671 screened studies, 44 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Forty-three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses, one study reported both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and another study reported cost utilities of cervical cancer screening methods only. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing was reported as a dominant stand-alone screening test by 14 studies, while five studies reported visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as a dominant stand-alone screening test. Primary HPV screening strategies were dominant in 21 studies, while three studies reported cytology-based screening strategies as the dominant screening method.ConclusionsExisting evidence indicates that HPV-based and VIA testing strategies are cost-effective, but this is dependent on setting. Our review suggests the limited cost-effectiveness of cytology-based testing, which may be due in part to the need for specific infrastructures and human resources.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020212454.

A Comparison of the Content and Consistency of Methodological Quality and Transferability Checklists for Reviewing Model-Based Economic Evaluations.

The aim of this study was to examine whether and how the content of six checklists (Caro, Consensus on Health Economic Criteria [CHEC]-Extended, European Network of Health Economic Databases [EURONHEED], National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], Philips, Welte) affect the consistency in findings on methodological quality and transferability, using 10 model-based economic evaluations of genetic-guided pharmacotherapy for venous thromboembolism. Each checklist was categorised by domain (structure, data, consistency, etc.) and type of assessment (presence vs. appropriateness) and was applied to each study by two independent reviewers who agreed on ratings via consensus, and discussion with a third reviewer when necessary. Methodological quality scores and rankings were examined using Spearman correlation tests, with subgroup analyses for domains and types of assessment. We compared overall ratings of transferability qualitatively, including how content may affect what is considered 'transferable'. The checklists had similar proportions of items judging presence and appropriateness, but varying proportions of items across domains. For methodological quality, ranking consistencies were the highest between CHEC-Extended-Philips, Philips-NICE and NICE-Caro, with similar consistencies for domains and type of assessment. For transferability, NICE and Caro identified the same study, which scored high on EURONHEED, as transferable to the UK, while Welte, which considered methodological quality, identified none as transferable. We found that the choice of checklist can affect findings on study quality and decisions about whether study results are transferable, indicating that different checklists may shortlist different sets of studies in formulating policy recommendations, leading to different policy decisions. Our systematic approach for evaluating the content of methodological quality and transferability checklists of economic evaluations can be extended to other checklists.

Modelling in economic evaluation of mental health prevention: current status and quality of studies

BackgroundThe present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the quality of model-based economic evaluation studies in mental health prevention.MethodsA systematic search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible records using predefined criteria and extracted data using a pre-piloted data extraction form. The 61-item Philips Checklist was used to critically appraise the studies. Systematic review registration number: CRD42020184519.ResultsForty-nine studies were eligible to be included. Thirty studies (61.2%) were published in 2015–2021. Forty-seven studies were conducted for higher-income countries. There were mainly cost-utility analyses (n = 31) with the dominant primary outcome of quality-adjusted life year. The most common model was Markov (n = 26). Most of the studies were conducted from a societal or health care perspective (n = 37). Only ten models used a 50-year time horizon (n = 2) or lifetime horizon (n = 8). A wide range of mental health prevention strategies was evaluated with the dominance of selective/indicate strategy and focusing on common mental health problems (e.g., depression, suicide). The percentage of the Philip checkilst’s criteria fulfilled by included studies was 69.3% on average and ranged from 43.3 to 90%. Among three domains of the Philip checklist, criteria on the model structure were fulfilled the most (72.1% on average, ranging from 50.0% to 91.7%), followed by the data domain (69.5% on average, ranging from 28.9% to 94.0%) and the consistency domain (54.6% on average, ranging from 20.0% to 100%). The practice of identification of ‘relevant’ evidence to inform model structure and inputs was inadequately performed. The model validation practice was rarely reported.ConclusionsThere is an increasing number of model-based economic evaluations of mental health prevention available to decision-makers, but evidence has been limited to the higher-income countries and the short-term horizon. Despite a high level of heterogeneity in study scope and model structure among included studies, almost all mental health prevention interventions were either cost-saving or cost-effective. Future models should make efforts to conduct in the low-resource context setting, expand the time horizon, improve the evidence identification to inform model structure and inputs, and promote the practice of model validation.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS.Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA.Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes. With regard to endophthalmitis, we found thatrelative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS.Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, butdid not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paediatric mental health interventions: a systematic review of model-based economic evaluations

Mental health disorders among children and youth are causing significant burden on health care systems. Hence, identifying cost-effective interventions is important for effective mental health care allocation. Although model-based economic evaluations are an essential component of assessing cost-effectiveness, evidence are limited in the context of child and youth mental health care. The objective was to systematically review the model-based economic evaluations of mental health interventions for children and youth.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched using appropriate search terms to retrieve model-based economic evaluations of mental health interventions for children and youth. The reporting quality of the included studies were appraised using the Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsThe database search yielded 1921 records. Of the 12 selected for review, 66% were published after year 2015. Most of the studies were related to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. There were eight cost-utility studies, three cost-effectiveness studies, and one study using both forms of analysis. Six studies used Markov models, three used decision trees, and three studies used both types of models. However, the model structure, health states, time horizon, and economic perspective showed wide variation. The reporting quality of the included studies varied from 91 to 96%.ConclusionModel based mental health economic evaluations among children and youth are increasingly being reported in recent research. The included studies used Markov models and decision trees, either alone or in combination, and the majority of the articles were of good reporting quality.

Eliciting uncertainty for complex parameters in model-based economic evaluations: quantifying a temporal change in the treatment effect.

In model-based economic evaluations, the effectiveness parameter is often informed by studies with a limited duration of follow-up, requiring extrapolation of the treatment effect over a longer time horizon. Extrapolation from short-term data alone may not adequately capture uncertainty in that extrapolation. This study aimed to use structured expert elicitation to quantify uncertainty associated with extrapolation of the treatment effect observed in a clinical trial. A structured expert elicitation exercise was conducted for an applied study of a podiatry intervention designed to reduce the rate of falls and fractures in the elderly. A bespoke web application was used to elicit experts' beliefs about two outcomes (rate of falls and odds of fracture) as probability distributions (priors), for two treatment options (intervention and treatment as usual) at multiple time points. These priors were used to derive the temporal change in the treatment effect of the intervention, to extrapolate outcomes observed in a trial. The results were compared with extrapolation without experts' priors. The study recruited thirty-eight experts (geriatricians, general practitioners, physiotherapists, nurses, and academics) from England and Wales. The majority of experts (32/38) believed that the treatment effect would depreciate over time and expressed greater uncertainty than that extrapolated from a trial-based outcome alone. The between-expert variation in predicted outcomes was relatively small. This study suggests that uncertainty in extrapolation can be informed using structured expert elicitation methods. Using structured elicitation to attach values to complex parameters requires key assumptions and simplifications to be considered.

POSC55 Model-Based Health Economic Evaluations of Screening Using Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a promising technology for population-based screening programs because it is non-invasive, relatively inexpensive and has low radiation. Chest LDCT could be used to screen for different diseases of the lungs and heart. This review aimed to provide a detailed overview of the methodological decisions including organizational aspects (e.g. target screening population) reported in model-based health economic evaluations of screening programs using chest LDCT. Scopus and PubMed were searched for publications up to 25 June 2021. Eligible publications comprised prospective studies evaluating the long-term costs and health effects of screening with chest LDCT in a high-risk population, were written in English and published in the last ten years. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The search yielded 795 unique papers, of which 33 were included. Most papers focused on lung cancer screening (n=31, 94%), followed by coronary calcium scoring (n=2, 6%). There were no evaluations of screening for multiple diseases. Cohort models (e.g. decision trees) were the most common modelling technique (n=21, 64%), followed by microsimulation (n=12, 36%). Studies were in the healthcare context of the United States (n=10), Canada (n=3), the United Kingdom (n=3) and 11 other countries. Only 10 papers (24%) included the effect of an imperfect attendance rate. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening compared to no-screening was US$34,000/QALY (US$10,000/QALY-US$90,000/QALY) and US$21,700/QALY (US$10,500/QALY-US$32,900/QALY) for coronary calcium scoring compared to current practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness reported in model-based health economic evaluations of screening using chest LDCT differ substantially between studies as reported for lung cancer and calcium scoring. This variation could be caused by the healthcare contexts in different countries, modelling methods, inputs and assumptions. A gap still exists in literature to evaluate the combination of screening for multiple diseases.