Search

© 2016, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Objective: This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations. Methods: A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation. Results: The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values. Conclusions: Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

© 2016, Springer International Publishing Switzerland. Introduction: Estimating the real-world cost-effectiveness of a new drug relies on understanding the differences between clinical trial data (pre-reimbursement) and clinical practice (post-reimbursement). This is important for decision makers when reviewing reimbursement decisions, prices, and considering other drugs for the same condition. Differences can arise from differences in patient characteristics, but also from the availability of new evidence and evolving treatment practices. This paper examines these issues using a case study. Methods: In 2001, the Australian Government funded trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer through the Herceptin Program. The administrative arrangements of the Program resulted in rich observational data that captured information about patients treated with trastuzumab between 2001 and 2010 (n = 3830). The dataset included patient characteristics, dispensed medicines, medical service use and date of death. Results: Compared to participants in the clinical trials, patients were older, received more prior chemotherapies and a broader range of co-administered chemotherapies. Treatment practices differed from the clinical trials, but also changed over time. For example, in situ hybridization testing, rather than immunohistochemistry testing, and a three weekly administration schedule, rather than one weekly, were increasingly used. Compared to the clinical trials, patients administered trastuzumab with a concomitant chemotherapy generally experienced longer overall survival (151.3 weeks, 95 % CI: 142.6, 163.4), while those who received trastuzumab as a monotherapy experienced shorter overall survival (94.4 weeks, 95%CI: 86.4, 102.9). These findings may be due to a differing relative treatment effect in clinical practice, but may also be due to a range of other factors. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates the challenges for decision makers that arise because new evidence and evolving treatment practices create a gap between clinical trial data and real-world clinical practice and outcomes.

Lower back pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions in the developed world and accounts for significant health services use. The American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society have published a joint clinical guideline that recommends providing patients with information on prognosis and self-management, the use of medications with proven benefits and, for those who do not improve, consideration be given to the use of spinal manipulation (for acute lower back pain only), interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, massage, yoga, cognitive behavioural therapy or relaxation. The purpose of this review was to evaluate published economic evaluations of pharmacological management for chronic lower back pain. A total of seven studies were eligible for inclusion in there view. The quality of the economic evaluations undertaken in the included studies was not high. This was primarily because of the nature of the underlying clinical evidence, most of which did not come from rigorous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the manner in which it was incorporated into the economic evaluations. All studies provided reasonable information about what aspects of healthcare and other resource use were identified, measured and valued. However, the reporting of total costs was not uniform across studies. Measures of pain and disability were the most commonly collected outcomes measures. Two studies collected information on quality of life directly from participants while two studies modelled this information based on the literature. Future economic evaluations of interventions for chronic lower back pain, including pharmacological interventions, should be based on the results of well-conducted RCTs where the measurement of costs and outcomes such as quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years is included in the trial protocol, and which have a follow-up period sufficient to capture meaningful changes in both costs and outcomes. In the absence of RCT data, economic models should be used to estimate future costs and outcomes using robust methods.

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent falls and fall-related injuries among older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) from an Australian health care perspective. A decision analytic Markov model was developed that stratified individuals according to their risk of falling and accounted for the risk of injury following a fall. The effectiveness of the interventions was derived from two Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials for falls/fall-related injury prevention in RACFs. Interventions were considered effective if they reduced the risk of falling or reduced the risk of injury following a fall. The interventions that were modelled included vitamin D supplementation, annual medication review, multifactorial intervention (a combination of risk assessment, medication review, vision assessment and exercise) and hip protectors. The cost effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost relative to the incremental benefit, in which the benefit was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Uncertainty was explored using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Vitamin D supplementation and medication review both dominated ‘no intervention’, as these interventions were both more effective and cost saving (because of healthcare costs avoided). Hip protectors are dominated (less effective and more costly) by vitamin D and medication review. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for medication review relative to vitamin D supplementation is AU$2442 per QALY gained, and the ICER for multifactorial intervention relative to medication review is AU$1,112,500 per QALY gained. The model is most sensitive to the fear of falling and the cost of the interventions. The model suggests that vitamin D supplementation and medication review are cost-effective interventions that reduce falls, provide health benefits and reduce health care costs in older adults living in RACFs.

Like other countries, Australia has had some success in incorporating economic evidence into national healthcare decisions. However, it has been recognised that this coverage does not extend to the local hospital or health region level. An extensive body of research has identified barriers to the use of economic evidence at the local level, leading some commentators to suggest that economic evaluation should only be targeted at national decision-making bodies. Yet, local decision makers in Australia and elsewhere make important choices about the uptake and diffusion of healthcare technologies. We propose a number of interrelated options to address the barriers that currently prohibit the use of economic evaluation by local decision makers in many jurisdictions. These include wider dissemination of user friendly models, inclusion of assessments of the cost impact of interventions on various budgets, and the establishment of an authoritative body that ensures the production of high quality economic models. It is argued that these options can have a significant impact on the way economic evaluations are conducted, reported, disseminated and used.