Prioritizing Healthcare Interventions: A Comparison of Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which stated preferences for treatment criteria elicited using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods are consistent with the trade-offs (implicitly) applied in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), and the impact of any differences on the prioritization of treatments.MethodsWe used existing MCDA and CEA models developed to evaluate interventions for knee osteoarthritis in the New Zealand population. We established equivalent input parameters for each model, for the criteria “treatment effectiveness,” “cost,” “risk of serious harms,” and “risk of mild-to-moderate harms” across a comprehensive range of (hypothetical) interventions to produce a complete ranking of interventions from each model. We evaluated the consistency of these rankings between the 2 models and investigated any systematic differences between the (implied) weight placed on each criterion in determining rankings.ResultsThere was an overall moderate-to-strong correlation in intervention rankings between the MCDA and CEA models (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.51). Nevertheless, there were systematic differences in the evaluation of trade-offs between intervention attributes and the resulting weights placed on each criterion. The CEA model placed lower weights on risks of harm and much greater weight on cost (at all accepted levels of willingness-to-pay per quality-adjusted life-year than did respondents to the MCDA survey.ConclusionsMCDA and CEA approaches to inform intervention prioritization may give systematically different results, even when considering the same criteria and input data. These differences should be considered when designing and interpreting such studies to inform treatment prioritization decisions.     

Economic Evaluation of New Models of Care: Does the Decision Change Between Cost-Utility Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis?

ObjectivesTo experiment with new approaches of collaboration in healthcare delivery, local authorities implement new models of care. Regarding the local decision context of these models, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) may be of added value to cost-utility analysis (CUA), because it covers a wider range of outcomes. This study compares the 2 methods using a side-by-side application.MethodsA new Dutch model of care, Primary Care Plus (PC+), was used as a case study to compare the results of CUA and MCDA. Data of patients referred to PC+ or care-as-usual were retrieved by questionnaires and administrative databases with a 3-month follow-up. Propensity score matching together with generalized linear regression models was used to reduce confounding. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore uncertainty in the results.ResultsAlthough both methods indicated PC+ as the dominant alternative, complementary differences were observed. MCDA provided additional evidence that PC+ improved access to care (standardized performance score of 0.742 vs 0.670) and that improvement in health-related quality of life was driven by the psychological well-being component (standardized performance score of 0.710 vs 0.704). Furthermore, MCDA estimated the budget required for PC+ to be affordable in addition to preferable (€521.42 per patient). Additionally, MCDA was less sensitive to the utility measures used.ConclusionsMCDA may facilitate an auditable and transparent evaluation of new models of care by providing additional information on a wider range of outcomes and incorporating affordability. However, more effort is needed to increase the usability of MCDA among local decision makers.     

Evaluating Complex Health and Social Care Program Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study of “Better Together in Amsterdam North”

ObjectivesMulti-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been recommended to support policy making in healthcare. However, practical applications of MCDA are sparse. One potential use for MCDA is for the evaluation of programs for complex and vulnerable patients. These complex patients benefit from integrated care programs that span healthcare and social care and aim to improve more than just health outcomes. MCDA can evaluate programs that aim to improve broader outcomes because it allows the evaluation of multiple outcomes alongside each other. In this study, we evaluate an innovative integrated care program in the Netherlands using MCDA.MethodsWe used an innovative MCDA framework with broad outcomes of health, well-being, and cost to evaluate the Better Together in Amsterdam North (BSiN) program using preferences of patients, partners, providers, payers, and policy makers in the Netherlands. BSiN provides case management support for a period of 6 months. Seven outcomes that previous research has deemed important to complex patients were measured, including physical functioning and social relationships and participation.ResultsWe find that the program improved the overall MCDA score marginally, and, thus, after 6 and after 12 months, BSiN was preferred to usual care by all stakeholders. BSiN was preferred to usual care, mostly owing to improvements in psychological well-being and social relationships and participation.ConclusionsThe integrated healthcare and social care program BSiN in the Netherlands was preferred to usual care according to an MCDA evaluation. MCDA seems a useful method to evaluate complex programs with benefits beyond health.     

Is Dietetic Treatment for Undernutrition in Older Individuals in Primary Care Cost-Effective?

ObjectivesUndernutrition in older age is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high health care costs. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a dietetic treatment in primary care compared with usual care in older, undernourished, community-dwelling individuals.DesignA parallel randomized controlled trial.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsA total of 146 undernourished, independently living older (≥65 years) individuals.InterventionDietetic treatment.MeasurementsMain outcomes were change in kilogram body weight compared with baseline and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) after 6 months. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. The main analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data and bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.ResultsThe participants were randomized to receive either dietetic treatment (n = 72) or usual care (n = 74). After 6 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the dietetic treatment and usual care group in body weight change (mean difference 0.78 kg, 95% CI −0.26–1.82), QALYs (mean difference 0.001, 95% CI −0.04–0.04) and total costs (mean difference €1645, 95% CI −525–3547). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for QALYs was not interpretable. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for body weight gain was 2111. The probability that dietetic treatment is cost-effective compared with usual care was 0.78 for a ceiling ratio of €5000 for body weight and 0.06 for a ceiling ratio of €20.000 for QALY.ConclusionIn this study, dietetic treatment in older, undernourished, community-dwelling individuals was not cost-effective compared with usual care.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Bronchial Asthma: An Analysis of the EPRA Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesAt 3 months after the intervention, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a 3-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with asthma compared with usual care alongside the single-center randomized controlled trial—Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Asthma.MethodsAdopting a societal perspective, direct medical costs and productivity loss were assessed using the Questionnaire for Health-Related Resource Use-Lung, a modification of the FIM in an Elderly Population. The effect side was operationalized as minimal important differences (MIDs) of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and through quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Adjusted mean differences in costs (gamma-distributed model) and each effect parameter (Gaussian-distributed model) were simultaneously calculated within 1000 bootstrap replications to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and to subsequently delineate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsPR caused mean costs per capita of €3544. Three months after PR, we observed higher mean costs (Δ€3673; 95% confidence interval (CI) €2854-€4783) and improved mean effects (ACT Δ1.59 MIDs, 95% CI 1.37-1.81; AQLQ Δ1.76 MIDs, 95% CI 1.46-2.08; QALYs gained Δ0.01, 95% CI 0.01-0.02) in the intervention group. The ICER was €2278 (95% CI €1653-€3181) per ACT-MID, €1983 (95% CI €1430-€2830) per AQLQ-MID, and €312 401 (95% CI €209 206-€504 562) per QALY gained.ConclusionsContrasting of PR expenditures with ICERs suggests that the intervention, which achieves clinically relevant changes in asthma-relevant parameters, has a high probability to be already cost-effective in the short term. However, in terms of QALYs, extended follow-up periods are likely required to comprehensively judge the added value of a one-time initial investment in PR.     

The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Machine Learning Tool That Can Prevent Untimely Intensive Care Unit Discharge

ObjectivesThe machine learning prediction model Pacmed Critical (PC), currently under development, may guide intensivists in their decision-making process on the most appropriate time to discharge a patient from the intensive care unit (ICU). Given the financial pressure on healthcare budgets, this study assessed whether PC has the potential to be cost-effective compared with standard care, without the use of PC, for Dutch patients in the ICU from a societal perspective.MethodsA 1-year, 7-state Markov model reflecting the ICU care pathway and incorporating the PC decision tool was developed. A hypothetical cohort of 1000 adult Dutch patients admitted in the ICU was entered in the model. We used the literature, expert opinion, and data from Amsterdam University Medical Center for model parameters. The uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses.ResultsPC was a cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €18 507 per quality-adjusted life-year. PC remained cost-effective over standard care in multiple scenarios and sensitivity analyses. The likelihood that PC will be cost-effective was 71% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The key driver of the results was the parameter “reduction in ICU length of stay.”ConclusionsWe showed that PC has the potential to be cost-effective for Dutch ICUs in a time horizon of 1 year. This study is one of the first cost-effectiveness analyses of a machine learning device. Further research is needed to validate the effectiveness of PC, thereby focusing on the key parameter “reduction in ICU length of stay” and potential spill-over effects.     

Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Including Health Interventions in the Universal Health Coverage Benefit Package in Thailand

ObjectivesConsidering rising health expenditure on the one hand and increasing public expectations on the other hand, there is a need for explicit health care rationing to secure public acceptance of coverage decisions of health interventions. The National Health Security Office, the institute managing the Universal Coverage Scheme in Thailand, recently called for more rational, transparent, and fair decisions on the public reimbursement of health interventions. This article describes the application of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to guide the coverage decisions on including health interventions in the Universal Coverage Scheme health benefit package in the period 2009–2010.MethodsWe described the MCDA priority-setting process through participatory observation and evaluated the rational, transparency, and fairness of the priority-setting process against the accountability for reasonableness framework.ResultsThe MCDA was applied in four steps: 1) 17 interventions were nominated for assessment; 2) nine interventions were selected for further quantitative assessment on the basis of the following criteria: size of population affected by disease, severity of disease, effectiveness of health intervention, variation in practice, economic impact on household expenditure, and equity and social implications; 3) these interventions were then assessed in terms of cost-effectiveness and budget impact; and 4) decision makers qualitatively appraised, deliberated, and reached consensus on which interventions should be adopted in the package.ConclusionThis project was carried out in a real-world context and has considerably contributed to the rational, transparent, and fair priority-setting process through the application of MCDA. Although the present project has applied MCDA in the Thai context, MCDA is adaptable to other settings.     

Cost-effectiveness of a Diet and Resistance Exercise Intervention in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: ProMuscle in Practice

ObjectivesAgeing is associated with a decline in functioning and a loss of independence, which will lead to increased health care costs in the future. The ProMuscle in Practice intervention was found to be effective in improving muscle strength, muscle mass, and functioning of older adults. The current study assesses the cost-effectiveness and perceived benefits of the intervention.DesignTrial-based cost-effectiveness analysis complemented by interviews.Setting and participantsA total of 168 community-dwelling older adults were included. Intervention participants started with a 12-week intensive support program, comprising resistance exercise guided by physiotherapists and consultations with a dietitian to increase protein intake. To maintain the adapted lifestyle pattern, they continued with a 12-week moderate support intervention. The control group received usual care.MethodsCosts and outcomes were measured at baseline, after 12 and 24 weeks. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective. Health care use, out-of-pocket costs, and productivity losses were measured using questionnaires. Intervention costs were quantified according to bottom-up micro-costing. Outcomes included quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) and physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]). Bootstrap analyses were used to generate cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Interviews with participants and professionals were conducted after 24 weeks to measure perceived benefits.ResultsAn Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of €2988 ($3385)/point increase in SPPB was found. The intervention has an 82.4% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €12.000 ($13.559)/point increase in SPPB. No change in quality of life was found according to EQ-5D-5L. Interviews, however, revealed a wide range of function-related perceived benefits.Conclusions and ImplicationsAt a WTP of €12.000 ($13.559)/point increase in SPPB, the intervention was found to have an 82.4% probability of being cost-effective. Because generic quality of life questionnaires seem unable to detect subtle changes in public health interventions, future studies are advised to include targeted and specific questionnaires.     

The Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Decision Making in Healthcare: An Updated Systematic Literature Review

ObjectivesMulticriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is increasingly used for decision making in healthcare. However, its application in different decision-making contexts is still unclear. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive review of MCDA studies performed to inform decisions in healthcare and to summarize its application in different decision contexts.MethodsWe updated a systematic review conducted in 2013 by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar for MCDA studies in healthcare, published in English between August 2013 and November 2020. We also expanded the search by reviewing grey literature found via Trip Medical Database and Google, published between January 1990 and November 2020. A comprehensive template was developed to extract information about the decision context, criteria, methods, stakeholders involved, and sensitivity analyses conducted.ResultsFrom the 4295 identified studies, 473 studies were eligible for full-text review after assessing titles and abstracts. Of those, 228 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. The use of MCDA continues to grow in healthcare literature, with most of the studies (49%) informing priority-setting decisions. Safety, cost, and quality of care delivery are the most frequently used criteria, although there are considerable differences across decision contexts. Almost half of the MCDA studies used the linear additive model whereas scales and the analytical hierarchy process were the most used techniques for scoring and weighting, respectively. Not all studies report on each one of the MCDA steps, consider axiomatic properties, or justify the methods used.ConclusionsA guide on how to conduct and report MCDA that acknowledges the particularities of the different decision contexts and methods needs to be developed.     

Cost-effectiveness of a primary care-based exercise intervention in perimenopausal women. The FLAMENCO Project

ObjectiveAdequate physical activity levels and a healthy lifestyle may prevent all kinds of non-communicable diseases, promote well-being and reduce health-care costs among perimenopausal women. This study assessed an exercise programme for perimenopausal women.MethodA total of 150 women (aged 45-64 years) not engaged in regular physical activity were randomly assigned to either a 16 week exercise intervention or to the control group. The study was conducted from the perspective of the National Health System. Health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), measured by the EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. The total direct costs of the programme were the costs of visits to primary care, specialty care, emergency, medicines, instructor cost and infrastructure cost. The results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to test the robustness of the analysis.ResultsMean QALYs over 16 weeks were.228 in the control group and.230 in the intervention group (mean difference: .002; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: −0.005 to 0.009). Improvements from baseline were greater in the intervention group in all dimensions of the EuroQol-5D-5L but not statistically significant. The total costs at the end of the intervention were 160.38 € in the control group and 167.80 € in the intervention group (mean difference: 7.42 €; 95%CI: −47 to 62). The exercise programme had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 4,686 €/QALY.ConclusionsThe programme could be considered cost-effective, although the overall difference in health benefits and costs was very modest. Longer term follow-up is needed.     

The cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting lifestyle change for the prevention of diabetes in a Swedish primary care and community based prevention program

Background

Policymakers need to know the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention initiative targeting weight reduction, increased physical activity and healthier diet in persons in pre-diabetic states by comparing a hypothetical intervention versus no intervention in a Swedish setting.

Methods

A Markov model was used to study the cost-effectiveness of a T2D prevention program based on lifestyle change versus a control group where no prevention was applied. Analyses were done deterministically and probabilistically based on Monte Carlo simulation for six different scenarios defined by sex and age groups (30, 50, 70 years). Cost and quality adjusted life year (QALY) differences between no intervention and intervention and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and visualized in cost-effectiveness planes (CE planes) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEA curves).

Results

All ICERs were cost-effective and ranged from 3833 €/QALY gained (women, 30 years) to 9215 €/QALY gained (men, 70 years). The CEA curves showed that the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the threshold value of 50,000 € per QALY gained was very high for all scenarios ranging from 85.0 to 91.1%.

Discussion/conclusion

The prevention or the delay of the onset of T2D is feasible and cost-effective. A small investment in healthy lifestyle with change in physical activity and diet together with weight loss are very likely to be cost-effective.

     

Affordability and Value in Decision Rules for Cost-Effectiveness: A Survey of Health Economists

ObjectivesNew health technologies are often expensive, but may nevertheless meet standard thresholds for cost effectiveness, a situation exemplified by recent hepatitis C cures. Currently, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not supply practical means of weighing trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and affordability, particularly when costs and benefits are temporally separated and in health systems with multiple payers, such as the United States. We formally characterized disagreements in CEA theory and identified how these trade-offs are presently addressed in practice.MethodsWe surveyed 170 health economics researchers.ResultsWhen presented with a hypothetical cost-effective drug therapy in the United States that would require 20% of a state’s Medicaid budget over 5 years, 34% of survey respondents recommended that policy makers fund the drug for all patients and 26% for a subset. By contrast, 26% recommended against funding the drug. We found additional disagreement regarding whether the willingness-to-pay threshold should be based on the budget (42%) or societal preferences (41%) and identified 4 approaches to weighing cost-effectiveness and affordability. A total of 61% of respondents did not believe that the threshold used in their last article (most often 1×-3× per capita gross domestic product) represented either the budget or societal willingness-to-pay threshold.ConclusionsWe use these findings to recommend metrics that can inform translation of CEA theory into practice. By contextualizing cost and value, researchers can provide more actionable policy recommendations.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Universal Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Using a Dynamic Bayesian Methodology: The BEST II Study

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) plays a role in the development of benign and malign neoplasms in both sexes. The Italian recommendations for HPV vaccines consider only females. The BEST II study (Bayesian modelling to assess the Effectiveness of a vaccination Strategy to prevent HPV-related diseases) evaluates 1) the cost-effectiveness of immunization strategies targeting universal vaccination compared with cervical cancer screening and female-only vaccination and 2) the economic impact of immunization on various HPV-induced diseases.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate whether female-only vaccination or universal vaccination is the most cost-effective intervention against HPV.MethodsWe present a dynamic Bayesian Markov model to investigate transmission dynamics in cohorts of females and males in a follow-up period of 55 years. We assumed that quadrivalent vaccination (against HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11) is available for 12-year-old individuals. The model accounts for the progression of subjects across HPV-induced health states (cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, penile, and head/neck cancer as well as anogenital warts). The sexual mixing is modeled on the basis of age-, sex-, and sexual behavioral-specific matrices to obtain the dynamic force of infection.ResultsIn comparison to cervical cancer screening, universal vaccination results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,500. When universal immunization is compared with female-only vaccination, it is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €11,600. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows a relatively large amount of parameter uncertainty, which interestingly has, however, no substantial impact on the decision-making process. The intervention being assessed seems to be associated with an attractive cost-effectiveness profile.ConclusionsUniversal HPV vaccination is found to be a cost-effective choice when compared with either cervical cancer screening or female-only vaccination within the Italian context.     

The Impact of Decision Makers’ Constraints on the Outcome of Value of Information Analysis

Background

When proven effective, decision making regarding reimbursement of new health technology typically involves ethical, social, legal, and health economic aspects and constraints. Nevertheless, when applying standard value of information (VOI) analysis, the value of collecting additional evidence is typically estimated assuming that only cost-effectiveness outcomes guide such decisions.

Do Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measures Reflect Cost-Effectiveness Evidence?

ObjectivesDespite its importance of quality measures used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the underlying cost-effectiveness evidence has not been examined. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness evidence associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.MethodsAfter classifying 23 quality measures with the Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome quality of care model, we identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) relevant to these measures from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry based on the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time horizon, and setting) framework. We then summarized available incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost-effectiveness of the quality measures.ResultsThe 23 quality measures were categorized into 14 process, 7 outcome, and 2 structure measures. Cost-effectiveness evidence was only available for 8 of 14 process measures. Two measures (Tobacco Screening and Hemoglobin bA1c Control) were cost-saving and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) improving, and 5 (Depression Screening, Influenza Immunization, Colon Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, and Statin Therapy) were highly cost-effective (median ICER ≤ $50 000/QALY). The remaining measure (Fall Screening) had a median ICER of $120 000/QALY. No CEAs were available for 15 measures: 10 defined by subjective patient ratings and 5 employed outcome measures without specifying an intervention or process.ConclusionsWhen relevant CEAs were available, cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with quality measures (measures were cost-effective). Nevertheless, most quality measures were based on subjective ratings or outcome measures, posing a challenge in identifying supporting economic evidence. Refining and aligning quality measures with cost-effectiveness evidence can help further improve healthcare efficiency by demonstrating that they are good indicators of both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.     

Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Monitoring Abiraterone Levels in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients

ObjectivesAbiraterone acetate is registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive and resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment outcome is associated with plasma trough concentrations (C_min) of abiraterone. Patients with a plasma C_min below the target of 8.4 ng/mL may benefit from treatment optimization by dose increase or concomitant intake with food. This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of monitoring abiraterone C_min in patients with mCRPC.MethodsA Markov model was built with health states progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death. The benefits of monitoring abiraterone C_min followed by a dose increase or food intervention were modeled via a difference in the percentage of patients achieving adequate C_min taking a healthcare payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties and their impac to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsMonitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase resulted in 0.149 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with €22 145 incremental costs and an ICER of €177 821/QALY. The food intervention assumed equal effects and estimated incremental costs of €7599, resulting in an ICER of €61 019/QALY. The likelihoods of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a dose increase or food intervention being cost-effective were 8.04%and 81.9%, respectively.ConclusionsMonitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase is not cost-effective in patients with mCRPC from a healthcare payer perspective. Monitoring in combination with a food intervention is likely to be cost-effective. This cost-effectiveness assessment may assist decision making in future integration of abiraterone TDM followed by a food intervention into standard abiraterone acetate treatment practices of mCRPC patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to primary care for influenza-like-illness: economic evaluation alongside the randomised controlled ALIC4E trial in 15 European countries

Background

Oseltamivir is usually not often prescribed (or reimbursed) for non-high-risk patients consulting for influenza-like-illness (ILI) in primary care in Europe. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding oseltamivir to usual primary care in adults/adolescents (13 years +) and children with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics, using data collected in an open-label, multi-season, randomised controlled trial of oseltamivir in 15 European countries.

Methods

Direct and indirect cost estimates were based on patient reported resource use and official country-specific unit costs. Health-Related Quality of Life was assessed by EQ-5D questionnaires. Costs and quality adjusted life-years (QALY) were bootstrapped (N = 10,000) to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), from both the healthcare payers’ and the societal perspectives, with uncertainty expressed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value for perfect information (EVPI) analysis. Additionally, scenario (self-reported spending), comorbidities subgroup and country-specific analyses were performed.

Results

The healthcare payers’ expected ICERs of oseltamivir were €22,459 per QALY gained in adults/adolescents and €13,001 in children. From the societal perspective, oseltamivir was cost-saving in adults/adolescents, but the ICER is €8,344 in children. Large uncertainties were observed in subgroups with comorbidities, especially for children. The expected ICERs and extent of decision uncertainty varied between countries (EVPI ranged €1–€35 per patient).

Conclusion

Adding oseltamivir to primary usual care in Europe is likely to be cost-effective for treating adults/adolescents and children with ILI from the healthcare payers’ perspective (if willingness-to-pay per QALY gained > €22,459) and cost-saving in adults/adolescents from a societal perspective.

     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a National Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Program in Ireland

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of introducing a publicly funded pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) program in Ireland.MethodsWe constructed a state-transition Markov model. This was a cross-sectional population model that tracked all HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) in Ireland over their lifetime. Access to a publicly funded PrEP program (medications + frequent monitoring) in high-risk MSM was compared with no PrEP. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the base case, introducing a PrEP program was considered cost saving and provided significant health benefits to the population. Univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that PrEP efficacy and HIV incidence had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. Including an increase in sexually transmitted infections had a negligible impact on the results.Efficacy was a significant driver in the model. PrEP was cost saving at all efficacy values above 60%, and at the lowest reported efficacy in MSM (44% in the iPrEX trial), the ICER was €4711/QALY (highly cost-effective). Event-based dosing (administration during high-risk periods only) was associated with additional cost savings.We estimated that 1705 individuals (95% CI: 617-3452) would join the program in year 1. The incremental budget impact was €1.5m (95% CI: €0.5m to €3m) in the first year and €5.4m over 5 years (95% CI: €1.8m to €11.5m), with 173 cases of HIV averted over 5 years.ConclusionWe found that the introduction of a PrEP program would be considered cost saving in the first cost-effectiveness analysis of its kind in Ireland.     

Cost-Effectiveness of a Proactive Primary Care Program for Frail Older People: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program.

Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Hypothetical Strategies to Enhance Retention in Care within HIV Treatment Programs in East Africa

ObjectivesAttrition from care among HIV infected patients can lead to poor clinical outcomes. Our objective was to evaluate hypothetical interventions seeking to improve retention-in-care (RIC) for HIV-infected patients in East Africa, asking whether they could offer favorable value compared to earlier ART initiation.MethodsWe used a micro-simulation model to analyze two RIC focused strategies within an East African HIV treatment program--“risk reduction,” defined as intervention(s) that decrease the risk of attrition from care; and “outreach,” defined as interventions that find patients and relink them with care. We compared this to earlier ART treatment as a measure of the potential health benefits forgone (e.g., opportunity cost).ResultsReducing attrition by 40% at an average cost of $10 per person remains a less efficient use of resources compared to ensuring full access to ART (cost- effectiveness ratio $1300 vs $3700) for ART eligible patients. An outreach intervention had limited clinical benefit in our simulation. If intervention costs are <$10 per person, however, an intervention able to achieve a 40% (or greater) reduction in attrition may be a cost-effective next implementation option following implementation of earlier ART treatment.ConclusionsOur results suggest that programs should consider retention focused programs once they have already achieved high degrees of ART coverage among eligible patients. It is important that decision makers understand the epidemiology and associated outcomes of those patients who are classified as lost to follow up in their systems prior to implementation in order to achieve the highest value.