Payer Perspective Research Articles

The cost of COVID-19 vaccine delivery in Bangladesh

ABSTRACT COVID-19 vaccination has been instrumental in fighting the pandemic, but evidence on the actual costs associated with delivering these vaccines in resource-constrained settings has been limited. We estimated the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Bangladesh through five delivery strategies in 2021 and 2022, including Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals, non-MOH government hospitals, outreach at Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) centers, mass campaigns, and schools. This was a bottom-up costing study, estimating costs from a payer and beneficiary perspective. We also mapped the funding flows for COVID-19 vaccination activities and analyzed programmatic and financial challenges. The economic cost incurred by the health system to deliver COVID-19 vaccines was $1.05 per dose, excluding vaccine costs. This was made up of a financial cost of $0.29 per dose and an opportunity cost of $0.75 per dose. School-based delivery incurred the lowest financial cost of $0.27, while outreach at EPI centers incurred the highest at $0.44 per dose. The low financial cost per dose is attributed to the high daily volumes delivered at sampled sites, minimal additional resources provided to sites to implement the COVID-19 vaccination program, and a reliance on the existing workforce. Beneficiaries spent an average of $1.63 to receive a single dose of COVID-19 vaccination at fixed sites, with transport representing the largest cost driver ($0.75 per dose). The economic cost to receive one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine was $4.78. Findings can support the Government of Bangladesh to make efficient and equitable resource allocation decisions for vaccination programs.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ramosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

This study was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of ramosetron compared to no antiemetic medications for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in South Korea. A decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ramosetron use versus no antiemetic therapy at 24-hour and 48-hour periods post-surgery over a 5-day duration. The model was populated using costs and utility parameters from published studies as well as from surveys of an expert panel of physicians using structured questionnaires. The cost parameters included the costs of drugs, treatment, patient time, productivity loss, and transportation. Effectiveness was measured using quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The study outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The parameter uncertainties were addressed using deterministic and probabilistic scenario analyses. The base-case analysis showed that, on average, patients treated with prophylactic ramosetron had lower costs from both the healthcare payer (US$16.88 vs US$17.33) and societal (US$16.89 vs US$18.72) perspectives and higher QALYs (0.0121 vs 0.0114) over the 5-day study duration compared to patients without any antiemetic medications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of results for the parameters included in the model. The acceptability curve probability showed that treating patients with ramosetron compared to no antiemetic medications was more than 99% cost-effective at a willingness-to pay threshold of US$5,000/QALY from both payer and societal perspectives. The results demonstrated that prophylactic use of ramosetron compared to no antiemetic therapy is highly cost-effective to prevent PONV for patients undergoing surgery from both healthcare payer and societal perspectives. The cost effectiveness is the result of the decrease in the incidence of PONV and the direct treatment costs of severe PONV with improved patient quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of universal esophageal cancer screening for newly diagnosed oral cancer patients.

Oral and esophageal cancers are globally prevalent, especially in East Asia. Over half of head and neck cancer patients developing second primary esophageal cancer (SPEC) were initially diagnosed with oral cavity cancer (OCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal endoscopic screening for early SPEC prevention in newly diagnosed OCC patients at different stages. This study employed Markov cohort models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic SPEC screening post-OCC diagnosis (stages 0 to IV) between screened and non-screened groups. Four surveillance frequencies were assessed: (i) one time, (ii) annual for 3years, (iii) annual for 10years, and (iv) annual for life. A hypothetical cohort of 100000 cases across stages was compared for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted annually at 3%. All four screening strategies were beneficial for all OCC stages, especially for early-stage patients, resulting in higher QALYs. Lifetime/annual screening from the payer's perspective proved most favorable, with incremental QALYs of 1.23 at stage 0 and 0.06 at stage IV. Incremental costs for this strategy ranged from NTD 121331 (USD 4044) at stage 0 to NTD 13032 (USD 434) at stage IV. Both incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values indicated cost savings from a societal perspective. The ICER values ranged from NTD -626440 (USD -20881) at stage 0 and NTD -475021 (USD -15834) at stage IV. Overall, our study provided cost-effectiveness evidences to understanding the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening in OCC patients, particularly emphasizing the benefits of early and consistent screening.

Economic burden of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile and head & neck cancers in Bulgaria

A retrospective, cost-of-illness study aimed at identifying direct healthcare costs of vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile, and H&N cancers in Bulgaria from the payer perspective and calculating indirect costs and the associated years of life lost was carried out. Costs’ data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Fund from January 2018 to December 2020. Years of life lost were calculated based on the country and gender-specific life expectancy. The human capital approach was used to evaluate the indirect costs. The total treatment costs for 3623 patients were EUR 10,875,771 (2018), EUR 11,922,521 (2019) and EUR 12,329,463 (2020). The costs associated with radiotherapy and drug acquisition and administration accounted for the majority (75–78%) of total healthcare costs. A cumulative loss of approximately 33,299 life years occurred between 2018 and 2020. The costs of productivity losses were estimated at EUR 14,113,265.

Cost-Effectiveness of Teduglutide for Pediatric Patients with Short Bowel Syndrome in Japan, Including Caregiver Burden.

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is associated with a significant mental and physical burden for patients and caregivers. Standard of care (SOC) for SBS includes parenteral support (PS) to optimize intestinal function. Teduglutide, a recombinant human glucagon-like peptide2 analogue, reduces the need for PS in patients with SBS. In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in pediatric patients with SBS from multiple perspectives, considering the caregiver's burden. A Markov model was used to evaluate cost (Japanese yen, JPY) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) of teduglutide compared with SOC for pediatric patients with SBS in Japan. We conducted a base-case analysis and selected sensitivity and scenario analyses from three perspectives: (1) the public healthcare payer, (2) the public healthcare and long-term care payer, and (3) society. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 9,533,412 JPY per QALY from the public healthcare payer perspective, 6,335,980 JPY per QALY from the public healthcare and long-term care payer perspective, and 3,510,371 JPY per QALY from the societal perspective. The probability that cost-effectiveness of teduglutide is favorable from a societal perspective was 59.3%. In all scenario analyses, consistent with the base-case analysis, ICERs for teduglutide compared with SOC were different depending on whether caregiver utility and productivity loss were considered. Incorporating the caregiver's burden in the cost-effectiveness analysis of teduglutide for pediatric patients with SBS provided a more comprehensive assessment of the value of teduglutide for patients, their families, and society. This approach enhances our understanding of the overall value of a treatment, especially for diseases with significant caregiver burden.

Introduction of a hexavalent vaccine containing acellular pertussis into the national immunization program for infants in Peru: a cost-consequence analysis of vaccination coverage

BackgroundInfant vaccination coverage rates in Peru have declined in recent years, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Introduction of the fully-liquid diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP)-inactivated polio vaccine (IPV)-hepatitis B (HB)-Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) hexavalent vaccine (DTaP-IPV-HB-Hib) in Peru’s infant National Immunization Program may help improve coverage. We evaluated costs and healthcare outcomes, including coverage, of switching from a pentavalent vaccine containing whole-cell pertussis component (DTwP-HB-Hib) plus IPV/oral polio vaccine (IPV/OPV) to the hexavalent vaccine for the primary vaccination scheme (2, 4 and 6 months).MethodsThe analysis was performed over a 5-year period on a cohort of children born in Peru in 2020 (N = 494,595). Four scenarios were considered: the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme (S1); replacing the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme with the hexavalent scheme (S2); expanded delivery of the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV scheme (S3); expanded delivery of the hexavalent scheme (S4). Vaccine coverage and incidence of adverse reactions (ARs) were estimated using Monte Carlo simulations and previous estimates from the literature. Cases of vaccine-preventable diseases were estimated using a Markov model. Logistical and healthcare costs associated with these outcomes were estimated. Impact of key variables (including coverage rates, incidence of ARs and vaccine prices) on costs was evaluated in sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe overall cost from a public health payer perspective associated with the pentavalent plus IPV/OPV vaccine scheme (S1) was estimated at $56,719,350, increasing to $61,324,263 (+ 8.1%), $59,121,545 (+ 4.2%) and $64,872,734 (+ 14.4%) in scenarios S2, S3 and S4, respectively. Compared with the status quo (S1), coverage rates were estimated to increase by 3.1% points with expanded delivery alone, and by 9.4 and 14.3% points, if the hexavalent vaccine is deployed (S2 and S4, respectively). In both scenarios with the hexavalent vaccine (S2 and S4), pertussis cases would also be 5.7% and 8.7% lower, and AR rates would decrease by 32%. The cost per protected child would be reduced when the hexavalent vaccine scheme. Incidence of ARs was an important driver of cost variability in the sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsImplementation of the hexavalent vaccine in Peru’s National Immunization Program has a positive public health cost consequence.

Cost Effectiveness of Sequencing Vedolizumab as First-Line Biologic in Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease in Canada: An Analysis Using Real-World Evidence from the EVOLVE Study.

Vedolizumab is a gut-selective anti-lymphocyte trafficking biologic indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) in Canada. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatment sequencing for UC and CD from a public healthcare payer perspective, leveraging new real-world evidence from the literature and the EVOLVE study, a retrospective chart review. Using separate decision tree/Markov models to assess cost effectiveness for UC and CD, two sequencing approaches were estimated for adult patients (≥ 18years) diagnosed with UC or CD who were biologic-naïve: vedolizumab as first-line biologic followed by anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α versus first-line anti-TNFα followed by vedolizumab. Treatment effectiveness (response and remission), surgery rates, dose escalation and regain of response and safety inputs were estimated from EVOLVE, a retrospective chart review of real-world data, and evidence synthesis from the literature, whereas costs and utilities were estimated from health technology assessment reports, clinical trials, and the literature. Biosimilar costs were used for anti-TNFα. Both models simulated a 5-year time horizon and discounted costs and outcomes at 1.5%. Probabilistic base-case analyses (n=10,000) reported total costs (2023 Canadian dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Several scenario analyses were conducted to explore robustness of results. In UC, vedolizumab as a first-line biologic followed by anti-TNFα resulted in an incremental gain of 0.09 QALYs (2.46 vs. 2.55) and saved $7179 ($134,028 vs. $126,848), making this a dominant strategy compared with first-line anti-TNFα followed by vedolizumab. In CD, use of vedolizumab as a first-line biologic resulted in an incremental gain of 0.04 QALYs (3.35 vs. 3.39) at an incremental cost of $50,631 ($89,850 vs. $140,381) versus first-line anti-TNFα followed by vedolizumab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,265,775 per QALY). Based on this analysis, sequencing vedolizumab as a first-line biologic prior to anti-TNFα in UC and CD provided additional clinical benefit to patients. In UC, vedolizumab as a first-line biologic also saved healthcare system costs compared with anti-TNFα, whereas in CD, vedolizumab provided incremental benefit at an incremental cost, which was not considered cost effective at a threshold of $50,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of nonavalent vs bivalent HPV vaccine in Polish setting.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a prevalent sexually transmitted infection with significant implications for public health. In Poland, a nationwide vaccination program offers a choice between the 9-valent (9v) and 2-valent (2v) HPV vaccines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 9v vs 2v vaccine from the public payer perspective in Poland. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the public health and economic benefits of using 9v vs 2v vaccine in Poland over 100-year horizon using a previously published deterministic dynamic transmission model. A target population of girls and boys aged 12-13 years was considered. The model was populated with local epidemiological inputs, utilities, and costs, including vaccine and administration costs, as well as costs related to medical procedures for HPV-related diseases. The 9v vaccine reduced the prevalence of HPV infections and HPV-related diseases substantially more than 2v vaccine when both are compared to no vaccination strategy. The total discounted cost savings of using the 9v vaccine instead of 2v, excluding the vaccine costs, amounted to EUR 66 million. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio amounted to 8094 EUR per quality-adjusted life year, much below the official cost-effectiveness threshold in Poland set up at the three times the annual gross domestic product per capita. 9v cost-effectiveness ratio remained unchanged when shorter time-horizons of 20, 40, 60, or 80 years were considered. Using 9v HPV vaccine in Poland is highly cost-effective compared to the 2v vaccine.

INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia.

The Tunisian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, INEAS, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of vemurafenib in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to enable the use of value-based pricing as a new approach to price negotiation. This study was part of a broader HTA report that was prepared in response to a joint request from the regulatory authorities and the CNAM, Tunisia's compulsory insurance scheme. Our analysis was based on a probabilistic Markov cohort model that calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with vemurafenib compared to the standard of care from a public payer perspective. The CEA indicated that vemurafenib provides a gain of 0.38 life years (1.78 vs. 1.4) for an incremental cost of USD 101,106.62 from the perspective of the main public payer (CNAM). This study revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 163,311.40 USD/QALY and 163,911.46 USD/QALY, respectively, from the CNAM and public health facilities' perspectives. Vemurafenib cannot be considered cost-effective in terms of what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness to pay (WTP) in Tunisia. A significant price reduction would be necessary to bring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to an acceptable level.

Evaluating cost-effectiveness of PFO management strategies: closure with Cardioform vs. Amplatzer, and treatment with medical therapy alone, for secondary stroke prevention

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure using CARDIOFORM Septal Occluders versus AMPLATZER Septal Occluders, as well as compared to Medical Therapy Alone, from a payor perspective in the United States. Methods An economic evaluation compared the value of CARDIOFORM, AMPLATZER, and Medical Therapy Alone. A Markov model simulated a cohort of 1,000 individuals with PFO and a history of cryptogenic stroke, with baseline demographic and clinical characteristics reflecting individuals enrolled in the REDUCE and RESPECT trials over a five-year time horizon. The costs and health consequences associated with complications and adverse events, including recurrent stroke, were compared over a time horizon of 5 years. Results PFO closure using CARDIOFORM was economically dominant, providing both cost-savings and improved effectiveness compared to closure with AMPLATZER. It resulted in an estimated savings of over $1.3 million, an additional 24.8 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and 28 strokes avoided in a cohort of 1,000 patients. When compared to Medical Therapy Alone, closure with CARDIOFORM was found to be cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $36,697 per QALY gained. Sensitivity and scenario analysis showed the model findings to be highly robust across reasonable changes to baseline input values and assumptions. Conclusions The results of this analysis suggest that PFO closure using the CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with a PFO-associated stroke, particularly compared to AMPLATZER where it resulted in both cost-saving and improved patient outcomes.

Inclusion of phase III clinical trial costs in health economic evaluations

IntroductionProtocol-driven trial activities contribute to the utility gain demonstrated in the phase III clinical trial of a new drug. If this utility gain cannot be distinguished from the effects of the new drug itself, protocol-driven trial costs cannot be easily dismissed for consistency reasons. This study aims to estimate the impact of including per-patient costs of phase III clinical trials on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).MethodsThe analysis utilized a modeling approach with secondary data from an ad-hoc literature review, considering both societal and payer perspectives. While the costs of phase III clinical trials may cancel out during the period of “normal” life-years due to the incremental cost calculation, they do not cancel out when differential early treatment termination occurs (e.g., due to differential mortality). Assuming the presence of differential mortality, per-patient phase III trial costs were calculated for the period of added life-years. These costs were then included in the ICER of a new drug, under the assumption that direct patient-related costs constitute 30–70% of the total trial costs. Capital costs were also incorporated from a societal perspective.ResultsBased on assumptions of $40,000 out-of-pocket expenses per patient enrolled in a phase III trial and a life expectancy gain of three months, incremental costs increased by $27,000 from a societal perspective. From a payer perspective, the estimate was $12,000.ConclusionsThe costs of phase III trials are a relevant component of the ICER, and excluding it is generally not appropriate for consistency reasons. Properly considering these trial costs is essential for a comprehensive evaluation of a new drug’s cost-effectiveness.

Multidisciplinary perspectives in Demodex blepharitis: A new view of treatment from clinical, payer, and patient perspectives.

Demodex infestation is the cause of more than two-thirds of all cases of blepharitis in the United States. Although symptoms may include crustiness, redness, or itching of the eyelids, diagnosis can be accomplished through a simple examination of the eyelashes. The presence of a waste product of the Demodex mite, known as collarettes, on the base of the eyelashes is a pathognomonic sign of Demodex blepharitis. Demodex infestation that results in blepharitis may cause blockage and ultimately atrophy of the meibomian glands, worsening dry eye disease. Until recently, management of Demodex blepharitis has been limited by a lack of approved therapy options. Lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25%, the first approved therapy for treatment of Demodex blepharitis, has not only been shown to eradicate Demodex mites in one-half to two-thirds of patients following short-term treatment but also demonstrated continued benefits through 1 year of follow-up. In addition to managing Demodex blepharitis, treatment with lotilaner ophthalmic solution 0.25% may aid in the management of dry eye disease and other forms of ocular surface disease caused by complications of Demodex infestation. As a result, it is possible that successful management of Demodex blepharitis may reduce chronic use of health care resources dedicated to managing other chronic ocular conditions. As eye care professionals recognize Demodex infestation as a key mediator of ocular surface disease, increasing diagnostic awareness and addressing this underlying cause of Demodex blepharitis may reduce the need for specialist follow-up care, decrease the need for chronic therapy, and improve patient outcomes. Through routine screening for Demodex infestation and Demodex blepharitis, eye care professionals can now address an underlying factor in ocular surface disease to improve use of health care resources in the community.

Cost-Effectiveness of 9-Valent HPV Vaccination for Patients Treated for High-Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia in the UK

Patients who have been treated for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN grade ≥2) are at a high risk for subsequent CIN and other cancers and diseases related to human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV vaccination can reduce the risk of subsequent disease in patients surgically treated for grade 2 or greater CIN; however, there is no formal recommendation for prophylactic HPV vaccination in this high-risk population, and the cost-effectiveness is unknown. To assess the incremental lifetime outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of integrating peritreatment 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccination in combination with posttreatment surveillance for the prevention of cervical cancer and other HPV-attributable diseases in patients surgically treated for grade 2 or greater CIN vs posttreatment surveillance alone from a UK payer perspective. This economic evaluation used 3 independent Markov model structures. Model inputs for vaccine efficacy, utilities, and costs were obtained from published sources, and cervical cancer screening data were obtained from the National Health Service Cervical Screening Program. Costs were adjusted to 2022 to 2023 reference years. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to September 2023. Peritreatment vaccination with 9vHPV in combination with posttreatment surveillance compared with posttreatment surveillance alone. Clinical outcomes included grade 1, 2, or 3 CIN; cervical cancer; vaginal cancer; vulvar cancer; anal cancer; head and neck cancer; genital warts; and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of £20 000 (US $26 200) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were estimated. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Vaccination with 9vHPV in conjunction with posttreatment surveillance was cost-effective, with a favorable ICER of £13 789.07 (US $18 064.68) per QALY gained (ie, below the WTP of £20 000 per QALY) vs posttreatment surveillance alone. The resulting ICER was £52 358.01 (US $68 588.99) per HPV-related cancer averted and £64 090 (US $83 958.18) per HPV-related cancer death averted. The ICER was most sensitive to discount rate, incidence of HPV infection, vaccine price, and age at initial treatment for grade 2 or greater CIN. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed peritreatment 9vHPV vaccination was cost-effective at the WTP recommended by the UK's Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (90% of iterations <£30 000 [US $39 300] per QALY) in 100% of iterations. These findings suggest that peritreatment prophylactic 9vHPV vaccination is a cost-effective option for preventing subsequent HPV-attributable diseases in patients surgically treated for grade 2 or greater CIN.

Virtual/Mobile Overdose Response in Canada: A Social Return on Investment Analysis

The overdose epidemic continues to be one of the leading causes of death in North America and continues to contribute to high healthcare costs. While harm reduction initiatives have significantly reduced the aforementioned costs, there is a dearth of evidence regarding overdose response hotlines and applications. We aim to evaluate the social return on investment (SROI) from a payer perspective of one such overdose response hotline, Canada's National Overdose Response Service, and its implications for service users, service operators, the Canadian healthcare system, and program funders. Outcome variables determined from theory of change models were developed in consultation with the aforementioned vested interest groups. Proxy values were attributed to each variable identified through values present within existing literature and databases. These values were then compared to operational costs accounting for deadweight, attribution, and displacement to determine a final SROI ratio. A discount rate was then applied based on the influence of risk on the outcome achieved. The ratio illustrating the value created for all stakeholders, resulting from the $1,592,00 investment made over two years, is $15.84 per single dollar invested. The value generated stems primarily from overdose prevention, mental health support, staff employment, reductions in emergency service utilization, service referrals, and volunteer well-being, which outweigh costs including operational funding, work-related stressors, compassion fatigue, and false calls. The results of our study demonstrate that the National Overdose Response Service provides a social value that far outweighs the costs attributed to the program's operation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Current Treatment Options for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

The management strategies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) include proton pump inhibitors (PPI), swallowed topical steroids (tCS), elimination diets, and the biologic agent dupilumab, although there remains little guidance on the selection of initial treament. We performed cost-effectiveness analyses to compare these approaches of first-line therapy. A Markov model was constructed from a payer perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line therapies for EoE, including PPI, tCS, and six-food elimination diet (SFED), with.crossover in treatments for primary and secondary non-response. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at two- and five-year time horizons. Secondary analyses included modeling from a societal perspective that also accounted for patient-specific costs, as well as a separate simplified model comparing dupilumab to tCS and PPI. In the base-case scenario (five-year time horizon), the average costs were SFED:$15,296.81, PPI:$16,153.77, and tCS:$20,975.33 as initial therapy, with SFED being the dominant strategy (more effective/less costly), while PPI offered the lowest cost on a two-year time horizon. From a societal perspective, PPI was the dominant initial strategy on both two- and five-year time horizons. Amongst pharmacologic therapies, PPI was the most cost-effective first-line option. Dupilumab was not cost-effective relative to tCS, unless the quarterly cost is reduced from $7,311 to $2,038.50 per price threshold analysis under permissive modeling conditions. SFED was the most effective/least costly first-line therapy from payer perspective, while PPI was more cost-effective from societal perspective. PPI is also the most cost-effective pharmacologic strategy. Dupilumab requires substantial cost reductions to be considered cost-effective first-line pharmacotherapy.

Transarterial radioembolization vs transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for treating hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Japanese healthcare system.

Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is effective for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; however, it awaits approval in Japan. This study aimed to simulate the cost-effectiveness of TARE over chemoembolization when TARE is approved in Japan and identify the requirements for cost-effectiveness. A Markov model was constructed to analyze the costs and effectiveness associated with TARE and transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) for 2-month cycles over 5years. In the primary analysis, the intention-to-treat survival data were used to calculate transition probabilities, whereas the ancillary analysis assessed the per-protocol survival data. DEB-TACE costs were calculated using the Japanese nationwide claims Diagnosis Procedure Combination database between April 2018 and March 2022, whereas TARE costs were estimated using database and international sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined based on the payer's perspective and compared with the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of 5 million Japanese yen (JPY) (31,250 USD) per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). From the claims database, 6,986 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who received DEB-TACE were identified. In the primary analysis, the ICER was 5,173,591 JPY (32,334 USD)/QALY, surpassing the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold. However, the ancillary analysis showed a lower ICER of 4,156,533 JPY (25,978 USD)/QALY, falling below the threshold. The one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis identified progression-free survival associated with TARE and DEB-TACE, DEB-TACE costs, and radioactive microsphere reimbursement price as key ICER influencers. The primary analysis suggested that setting the reimbursement price of radioactive microspheres below 1.399 million JPY (8,744 USD), approximately 2.8% lower than the price in the United Kingdom, would place the ICER below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold. Under specific conditions, TARE can be a more cost-effective treatment than DEB-TACE. If the reimbursement price of radioactive microspheres is set approximately 2.8% lower than that in the United Kingdom, TARE could be cost-effective compared with DEB-TACE.

Genicular Artery Embolization, Radiofrequency Ablation, and Corticosteroid Therapy for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Randomized Clinical Trial Data.

Background: Many patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are refractory to traditional nonsurgical treatments such as intraarticular corticosteroid (CS) injection but are not yet eligible for or decline surgery. Genicular artery embolization (GAE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are emerging adjunctive or alternative minimally invasive treatments. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing CS, GAE, and RFA, for treatment of symptomatic KOA using a Markov model based on a de novo network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials. Methods: CEA was conducted to compare GAE and RFA to CS using a Markov cohort state-transition model from a U.S. Medicare payer's perspective over a 4-year time horizon. The model incorporated each treatment's success and attrition rates, costs, and utility benefit. Utility benefit values were derived at short-term (0.5-3 months) and long-term (6-12 months) posttreatment follow-up from NMA of published RCTs using an outcome of improved knee pain and/or function. Analyses were conducted at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed, including when simulating various cost setting scenarios (i.e., office vs hospital outpatient treatment). Results: RFA demonstrated larger treatment effect than GAE, more pronounced at short-term [standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.6688, 95% CI [-2.7806; -0.5571], p=.003] than long-term (SMD -0.3822, 95% CI [-1.9743; 1.2100], p=.64) follow-up. Across cost setting scenarios, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios relative to CS were $561-1563/QALY for GAE versus $76-429/QALY for RFA (not counting scenarios in which RFA was dominated by CS). GAE demonstrated higher cost-effectiveness probability compared to RFA (41.6-54.8% vs. 18.4-29.2%, respectively). GAE was more cost-effective than RFA when the GAE clinical success rate and post-GAE utility value exceeded 32.1-51.0% and 0.562-0.617, respectively, and when the GAE quarterly attrition rate was less than 8.8-17.4%. RFA was more cost-effective when baseline pre-treatment utility values exceeded 0.695-0.713. Neither GAE costs nor RFA costs were sensitive parameters. Conclusion: Across scenarios, GAE was consistently the most likely cost-effective treatment option compared to RFA and CS, although clinical success rates, attrition rates, and utility values impact its cost-effectiveness. Clinical Impact: GAE is likely to be more cost-effective than RFA or CS for treatment of symptomatic KOA.

End-of-Life Costs in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Identify the costs of an oncology patient at the end of life. A systematic literature review was conducted by screening Embase, PubMed and Lilacs databases, including all studies evaluating end-of-life care costs for cancer patients up to March 2024. The review writing followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. The protocol is available at PROSPERO CRD42023403186. A total of 733 studies were retrieved, and 43 were considered eligible. Among the studies analyzed, 41,86% included all types of neoplasms, 18.60% of lung neoplasm, All articles performed direct cost analysis, and 9.30% also performed indirect cost analysis. No study evaluated intangible costs, and most presented the macrocosting methodology from the payer's perspective. The articles included in this review presented significant heterogeneity related to populations, diagnoses, periods considered for evaluation of end-of-life care, and cost analyses. Most of the studies were from a payer perspective (74,41%) and based on macrocosting methodologies (81,39%), which limit the use of the information to evaluate variabilities in the consumption of resources. Considering the complexity of end-of-life care and the need for consistent data on costs in this period, new studies, mainly in low- and middle-income countries with approaches to indirect and intangible costs, with a societal perspective, are important for public policies of health in accordance with the trend of transforming value-based care, allowing the health care system to create more value for patients and their families.

Cost-effectiveness of an interactive voice response system for improving retention in care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among young adults in Uganda

BackgroundNew interventions aimed at increasing access to and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among young people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (YPLHIV) are needed. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the call-for-life interaction voice response tool compared to that of the standard of care (SOC) for promoting treatment adherence and retention in care among YPLHIV in Western Uganda.This cost-effectiveness study used data from a randomized controlled trial and a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the long-term outcomes and costs of the Call for Life-Interactive Voice Response (CFL-IVR) tool and the usual care from the Ugandan public payer perspective. The model was parameterized using primary data and the literature and adopted a 1-year Markov cycle. The main outcomes were mean annual costs, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in form of cost per DALY averted. The CLF-IVR was deemed cost-effective if the ICER was between 1% and 51% of Uganda’s gross domestic product. We conducted deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of adjusting parameter values on cost-effectiveness estimates. All costs were reported in 2021 US dollars, and a discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes.ResultsThe base case analysis showed that, from the Ugandan public payer perspective, the CLF-IVR led to more mean annual costs ($359 vs. $280) and averted more mean annual DALYs (15.78 vs. 11.09) than the SOC, leading to an ICER of $17 per DALY averted. The base-case results did not change significantly in the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost-effectiveness estimates were more responsive to uncertainties surrounding ART duration, viral load suppression rates, and discount rates.ConclusionThe CLF-IVR may be a cost-effective intervention for promoting treatment adherence and retention in care among YPLHIV in Uganda and other low-income settings. Once implemented, similar interventions may lead to greater returns in encouraging adherence to ART and retention in care among YPLHIV and other vulnerable groups, and eventually favorable clinical outcomes.Trial registrationNCT04718974 Registry: clinical Trials.gov https://ichgcp.net/nl/clinical-trials-registry/NCT04718974 (20 Jan 2021).

Cost-effectiveness of multigene sequencing test and treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A unique setting in the initial adoption phase in Japan allowing testing only after standard treatment

ObjectiveTo clarify the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in Japan, from initial diagnosis to post-standard treatment, using three different strategies. MethodsA decision tree was created using three diagnostic and treatment strategies, assuming that Foundation One CDx (F1CDx), a comprehensive genome panel, was introduced in Japan in June 2019. This comprehensive decision tree includes Markov models, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA), and cost-utility analyses (CUA) of the three strategies from the perspective of Japanese payers. Specifically, Strategy1 involves single-gene testing at the initial diagnosis and F1CDx after standard treatment; Strategy2 involves only single-gene testing at the initial diagnosis; Strategy3 involves F1CDx at the initial diagnosis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the three strategies are estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the parameter settings. ResultsStrategy3 was dominated for both CUA and CEA. The ICER/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for Strategy2 versus Strategy1 was USD 13,734 (JPY 2,080,923, USD 1 = JPY 151.39 on April 1st, 2024), which is less than the willingness to pay of USD 45,900 (JPY 7,500,000), and Strategy2 was more cost-effective than Strategy1. F1CDx was not cost-effective compared to multiple simultaneous single tests at the initial diagnosis, either after standard treatment or at the initial diagnosis. Sensitivity analysis also showed that the most influential factor on the ICER for both CEA and CUA was treatment cost. ConclusionsFrom both patient benefit and health economic perspectives, introducing F1CDx after standard treatment in June 2019 was not as cost-effective as multiple simultaneous single tests at the initial diagnosis but was more realistic from a health economic perspective than introducing F1CDx at the time of initial diagnosis. Therefore, the policy at the time of F1CDx introduction in Japan was appropriate from a short-term health-economic perspective.