Search

Increasingly, medical writers are being asked to work with health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) information. HEOR uses data from both economic and clinical research to assess the clinical and economic value of new treatments. Many medical writers have the underlying skills required to incorporate HEOR concepts into their work but need more background to do this comfortably. This article provides an introduction to health economics study design, key terms, and commonly used outcomes research approaches. It also describes how health economics writing resembles and differs from traditional medical writing. It briefly explores the present and future role of HEOR in US health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prolonged postoperative ileus (POI) is the predominant cause of extended hospitalization after bowel resection surgery. Alvimopan accelerates gastrointestinal recovery, potentially reducing health care costs. We examined the value of alvimopan in reducing prolonged POI and length of stay for patients undergoing abdominal surgery using different definitions of POI.Study Design: We developed a decision analytic model to examine costs and outcomes associated with postoperative treatment with either an accelerated care pathway (ACP) only or alvimopan+ACP. To represent an overall perspective for alvimopan, data from four phase 3 bowel resection trials and one phase 4 radical cystectomy trial were used to populate the model with 3 different definitions of POI. The period analyzed included start of surgery to 7 days post discharge. Costs were obtained from standard US costing sources and are reported in 2015 US dollars. Due to variations in published definitions of POI, alternative definitions based on adverse event reports, NG tube insertion, and time to food toleration were examined.Results: The combined clinical trial data included 1,003 ACP and 1,013 alvimopan+ACP patients. When POI was reported as an adverse event, the incidence of POI was significantly lower with alvimopan+ACP (n = 70 [7%]) vs ACP alone (n = 148 [15%]; p < 0.0001). Time to discharge order written was shorter for patients with POI who were treated with alvimopan+ACP than with ACP (202 ± 115 hours vs 266 ± 138 hours; p < 0.0001). As a result, costs were $731 lower with alvimopan+ACP ($17,835) vs ACP ($18,566). Alternative definitions of POI produced similar results.Conclusions: The addition of alvimopan to existing treatment pathways for patients undergoing abdominal surgery can reduce overall hospital costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overactive bladder is a common condition, with recent findings estimating the prevalence in adults at about 15%. Symptoms, including urinary urgency, high voiding frequency and urge incontinence, have been shown to decrease patients' quality of life. Given its high prevalence, the economic burden of overactive bladder is also substantial, with a recent estimate placing the annual cost in the US at 9.1 billion US dollars (year 2000 values). The objective of this review is to provide a critical appraisal of published economic evaluations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for overactive bladder. Published economic evaluations of treatments for overactive bladder have focused entirely on pharmacological treatments -- mainly on the two most commonly used drugs, oxybutynin and tolterodine, each of which is available in immediate- and extended-release formulations. Ten economic evaluations (more than half are cost-effectiveness studies) have been published. Modelling with decision trees or Markov models has been the predominant method. Evaluations comparing drug therapy with no treatment have concluded that drug therapy is cost effective. Analyses comparing the formulations of oxybutynin and tolterodine have produced highly inconsistent results, largely due to the sources of data employed for effectiveness and treatment discontinuation rates. There are no evaluations of drugs relative to non-pharmacological treatment, and there are other significant gaps in the economic evaluations of treatment to date. These include gaps resulting from a lack of reliable data on the performance of these drugs in real-world settings, particularly data on long-term persistence with treatment. A more definitive pharmacoeconomic comparison of oxybutynin and tolterodine formulations, incorporating all available clinical data, and other treatment options would help direct treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A key criticism of applying the friction cost approach (FCA) to productivity cost estimation is its focus on a single friction period. A more accurate estimate of the friction cost of worker absence requires consideration of the chain of secondary vacancies arising from the opening of a new primary vacancy. Currently, empirical evidence on this is almost absent. We suggest an original approach to empirically estimate productivity costs that include a chain of secondary vacancies.Methods: The vacancy multiplier is based on labor market flows and transition probabilities between states of employment, unemployment, and economic inactivity. It is a summed infinite geometric series using a common ratio et - the probability of an employed person filling a new job vacancy in a given year. We report vacancy multipliers for 30 European countries for 2011-2019.Results: The average multiplier across Europe is 2.21 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.40) in 2019, meaning that every new primary vacancy created a chain of secondary vacancies that increased the primary friction cost by a factor of 2.21. The equivalent multiplier is 1.99 (SD = 0.37) between 2011 and 2019. Romania had the lowest country-specific multiplier (1.11 in 2011), and Greece the highest (4.51 in 2011).Conclusions: Our results highlight the extent of underestimation of current FCA costs, comprise a resource for future researchers, and provide an implementable formula to compute the multiplier for other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the effect of 20-week abortion bans on maternal and consequent neonatal health outcomes and costs in the setting of fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia.Methods: A decision-analytic model was built using TreeAge software to evaluate the effect of a 20-week ban on abortion in a theoretical cohort of 921 women diagnosed with fetal congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Probabilities, utilities, and costs were derived from the literature. The cohort size was based on the annual rate of prenatal diagnoses of congenital diaphragmatic hernia and live births among the 20 states with bans. The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Analysis was completed from the maternal perspective. Clinical outcomes included mode of delivery, maternal death, intrauterine fetal death, neonatal death, neurodevelopmental disability, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. One-way sensitivity analysis was used on all variables and Monte Carlo simulation was performed.Results: A policy restricting termination was associated with higher costs, at an additional $158,419,623, with decreased quality of life and 674 fewer quality-adjusted life-years. With 20-week bans in place, 60 women would travel out of state to obtain abortions. There would be 158 more live births affected by congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Of these births, 45 neonates would die before 28 days after birth and an additional 37 would have long-term neurodevelopmental disability.Conclusion: In this model, bans that limit abortions beyond 20 weeks of gestation were associated with worse health outcomes and increased costs for women with pregnancies complicated by congenital diaphragmatic hernia. The restriction of health care access should be considered in terms of the long-term outcomes and economic effect on individuals and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a user-friendly tool for managing the transfer of economic evaluation results.Methods: Factors that may influence the transfer of health economic study results were systematically identified and the way they impact on transferability was investigated. A transferability decision chart was developed that includes: knock-out criteria; a checklist based on the transferability factors; and methods for improving transferability and for assessing the uncertainty of transferred results. This approach was tested on various international cost-effectiveness studies in the areas of interventional cardiology, vaccination and screening.Results: The transfer of study results is possible pending the outcomes of the transferability check and necessary adjustments. Transferability factors can be grouped into areas of methodological, healthcare system and population characteristics. Different levels of effort are required for analysis of factors, ranging from very low (e.g. discount rate) to very high (e.g. practice variation). The impact of differences of most transferability factors can be estimated via the key health economic determinants: capacity utilisation, effectiveness, productivity loss and returns to scale. Depending on the outcomes of the transferability check a correction of the study results for inflation and for differences related to currencies or purchasing power might be sufficient. Otherwise, modelling-based adjustments might be necessary, requiring the (re-)building and sometimes structural modification of the study model. For determination of the most essential adjustments, a univariate sensitivity analysis seems appropriate. If not all relevant study parameters can be substituted with country-specific ones, multivariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis seems to be a promising way to quantify the uncertainty associated with a transfer. If study results cannot be transferred, the transfer of study models or designs should be investigated as this can significantly save time when conducting a new study.Conclusions: Our transferability decision chart is a transparent and user-friendly tool for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results. A state of the art description of the methodology in a study, providing detailed components for calculation, is not only essential for determining its transferability but also for improving it via modelling adjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical diagnosis and empiric therapy have been strategies for treatment of suspected influenza in high-risk patients, but rapid tests for influenza have been introduced to help confirm cases. The aim of this study was to determine when rapid testing, empiric treatment, or no treatment is most cost-beneficial for high-risk adults with influenzalike respiratory tract illnesses.Methods: We performed a cost-benefit analysis evaluating the comparative advantage of the strategies of empiric therapy, no treatment, or test and treat patients whose tests are positive. The analysis focused on a hypothetical population of patients who are at a high-risk for complications of influenza. Our main outcome was the cost of care for an episode of influenza taken from the human capital perspective.Results: For older anti-influenza drugs (amantadine and rimantadine), rapid testing is not as cost-beneficial as empiric treatment, even when the prevalence of influenza is low. For the neuraminidase inhibitors, there is a narrow window of disease prevalence between 30% and 40% where testing is most cost-beneficial. When the disease likelihood is above this window, empiric treatment is preferred. Below this window, no treatment is more cost-beneficial. Even under the most favorable conditions, testing is preferred only for a small range of prevalence rates of influenza.Conclusion: When clinicians are planning to use the nonneuraminidase inhibitors to treat influenza, rapid testing is not the most cost-beneficial approach. Even when the more expensive neuraminidase inhibitors will be used, testing has a limited role in managing influenza in high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]