Search

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a devastating disease which leads to loss of muscle function and paralysis. Historically, clinical drug development has been unsuccessful, but promising disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) may be on the horizon. Objectives: The aims of this study were to estimate survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs under current care, and to explore the conditions under which new therapies might be considered cost effective. Methods: We developed a health economic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of future ALS treatments from a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective over a lifetime horizon using data from the ALS-CarE study. Costs were valued at 2021/22 prices. Two hypothetical interventions were evaluated: a DMT which delays progression and mortality, and a symptomatic therapy which improves utility only. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify key drivers of cost effectiveness. Results: Starting from King's stage 2, patients receiving current care accrue an estimated 2.27 life-years, 0.75 QALYs and lifetime costs of £68,047. Assuming a 50% reduction in progression rates and a UK-converted estimate of the price of edaravone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a new DMT versus current care is likely to exceed £735,000 per QALY gained. Symptomatic therapies may be more likely to achieve acceptable levels of cost effectiveness. Conclusions: Regardless of efficacy, DMTs may struggle to demonstrate cost effectiveness, even at a low price. The cost effectiveness of DMTs is likely to be strongly influenced by drug price, the magnitude and durability of relative treatment effects, treatment starting/stopping rules and any additional utility benefits over current care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: The cost‐effectiveness to screen hepatic fibrosis in at‐risk population as recommended by several professional societies has been limited. This study aimed to investigate the cost‐effectiveness of this screening strategy in the expanded at‐risk population recently proposed by several societies. Methods: A combined model of the decision tree and Markov models was developed to compare expected costs, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) between screening and no screening groups. The model included liver disease‐related health states and cardiovascular disease (CVD) states as a base‐case analysis. Screening strategy consisted of fibrosis‐4 index (FIB‐4) followed by vibration‐controlled transient elastography (VCTE) and intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) as a treatment for diagnosed patients. Results: Cost‐effectiveness analysis showed that screening the at‐risk population entailed $298 incremental costs and an additional 0.0199 QALY per patient compared to no screening (ICER $14 949/QALY). Screening was cost‐effective based on the implicit ICER threshold of $25 000/QALY in Korea. When the effects of ILI on CVD and extrahepatic malignancy were incorporated into the cost‐effectiveness model, the ICER decreased by 0.85 times from the base‐case analysis (ICER $12 749/QALY). In contrast, when only the effects of liver disease were considered in the model, excluding cardiovascular disease effects, ICER increased from the baseline case analysis to $16 305. Even when replacing with medical costs in Japan and U.S., it remained cost‐effective with the estimate below the countries' ICER threshold. Conclusions: Our study provides compelling evidence supporting the cost‐effectiveness of FIB‐4‐based screening the at‐risk population for advanced hepatic fibrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disease burden of active tuberculosis (TB) is considerable, but systematic reviews of economic evaluations of active TB treatments are scarce. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases were used to search for articles on cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis that economically evaluated active TB treatments, which were then systematically reviewed by two independent reviewers. We extracted vital components of the included studies, such as country, population, intervention/comparator, primary outcome, values of outcomes, thresholds, model type, time horizon, and health states included in the model. Results: Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Thirteen dealt with interventions of medications, and the remaining four compared care strategies. The Markov model was the most commonly used tool to compare medications, whereas studies on care plans mainly used decision trees. The most commonly used primary outcome was disability-adjusted life years, followed by quality-adjusted life years. For treatment-naïve TB, the 4-month regimen was more cost-effective than the 6-month regimen mainly in low- and middle-income countries. For multidrug-resistant TB, a bedaquiline-based regimen was cost-effective. For multidrug-resistant TB, decentralized care that employed the use of home or mobile devices was more cost-effective than hospital-based centralized care in low- and middle-income countries. Conclusion: New treatment strategies to improve therapeutic outcomes by enhancing treatment adherence, such as regimens with shorter durations (2 or 4 months) and decentralized care, or new anti-TB agents (e.g., bedaquiline) have been suggested as cost-effective interventions for active TB. This review provides information on the economic evaluation of active TB from good-quality studies, thus aiding the future economic evaluation of active TB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) have suggested that adjuvant cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cell immunotherapy after curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). However, the cost-effectiveness of CIK cell immunotherapy as an adjuvant therapy for HCC compared to no adjuvant therapy is uncertain. Methods: We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the expected costs, life-year (LY), and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of a hypothetical population of 10,000 patients between CIK cell immunotherapy and no adjuvant therapy groups. Patients with HCC aged 55 years who underwent a potentially curative treatment were simulated with the model over a 20-year time horizon, from a healthcare system perspective. To model the effectiveness, we used OS and RFS data from RCTs and RWD. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and performed extensive sensitivity analyses. Results: Based on the RCT data, the CIK cell immunotherapy incrementally incurred a cost of $61,813, 2.07 LYs, and 1.87 QALYs per patient compared to no adjuvant therapy, and the estimated ICER was $33,077/QALY. Being less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, CIK cell immunotherapy was cost-effective. Using the RWD, the ICER was estimated as $25,107/QALY, which is lower than that obtained using RCT. The time horizon and cost of productivity loss were the most influential factors on the ICER. Conclusion: We showed that receiving adjuvant CIK cell immunotherapy was more cost-effective than no adjuvant therapy in patients with HCC who underwent a potentially curative treatment, attributed to prolonged survival, reduced recurrence of HCC, and better prognosis of recurrence. Receiving CIK cell immunotherapy may be more cost-effective in real-world clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In order to look beyond the cost-effectiveness analysis, this study used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), which reflects societal values with regard to reimbursement decisions. This study aims to elicit societal preferences of the reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs from public and healthcare professionals.Methods: Eight criteria were defined based on a literature review and focus group sessions: disease severity, disease population size, pediatrics targets, unmet needs, innovation, clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, and budget impacts. Using quota sampling and purposive sampling, 300 participants from the Korean public and 30 healthcare professionals were selected for the survey. Preferences were elicited using an analytic hierarchy process.Results: Both groups rated clinical benefits the highest, followed by cost-effectiveness and disease severity, but differed with regard to disease population size and unmet needs. Innovation was the least preferred criteria.Conclusions: Clinical benefits and other social values should be reflected appropriately with cost-effectiveness in healthcare coverage. MCDA can be used to assess decision priorities for complicated health policy decisions, including reimbursement decisions. It is a promising method for making logical and transparent drug reimbursement decisions that consider a broad range of factors, which are perceived as important by relevant stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]