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.

     

Economic evaluation of URMEL-ICE, a school-based overweight prevention programme comprising metabolism, exercise and lifestyle intervention in children

Objective

Measuring the impact of the URMEL-ICE school-based overweight prevention programme on anthropometric measures in primary-school children, computing incremental cost-effectiveness relation (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Methods

This is an intervention study with historical control. Propensity score method is applied to account for group differences. One-year teacher-driven classroom implementation is used, which is based on especially developed teaching material including health education, physical activity breaks and parent involvement. 354 children in the control and 365 children in the intervention group at baseline and follow-up were analysed. Effectiveness is measured as cm waist circumference (WC) and unit (0.01) waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) increase prevented in intervention vs. control group using an adjusted two-level model. Standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods, net benefit regression and a societal perspective for a 1-year time horizon are applied.

Results

WC gain was 1.61 cm and WHtR gain was 0.014 significantly less in intervention vs. control group. Intervention costs were €24.09 per child. ICER was €11.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) [8.78; 15.02]) per cm WC and €18.55 (95% CI [14.04; 26.86]) per unit WHtR gain prevented. At a maximum willingness to pay (MWTP) of €35, both values of the CIs for NMB regarding WC and WHtR are located in the positive range.

Conclusions

The study gives new information about the cost-effectiveness of structured health promotion embedded in daily routine at primary schools. Assuming a MWTP of €35 the intervention is cost-effective with a positive NMB. This result may help decision makers in implementing programmes to prevent childhood overweight in school settings.     

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.     

我国消除丙型肝炎的普通人群HCV检测策略的成本效果分析

目的 分析我国消除丙型肝炎（丙肝）的普通人群HCV检测策略的成本效果,明确最佳成本效果的HCV检测年龄。方法 运用TreeAge pro 2019软件构建决策树马尔科夫模型,以1年为周期,模拟10万名20~59岁各年龄组人群HCV检测和治疗结果,以全社会角度分析策略间比较的成本效果和效益。效果指标为增量成本效果比（ICER）,效益指标为净货币效益（NMB）,以我国2022年人均国内生产总值（85 698元）为意愿支付阈值。通过单因素敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析评估结果可靠性。结果 在20~59岁人群HCV检测有成本效果,在40~49岁年龄组进行HCV检测成本效果最佳。20~59岁年龄组人群HCV检测策略与未HCV检测策略比较,增量成本为161.24元/人,增量效用为0.003 6质量调整寿命年（QALYs）/人,ICER为45 197.26元/QALY,ICER小于意愿支付阈值,具有成本效果。各年龄组人群HCV检测策略与未HCV检测策略比较,ICER为42 055.06~53 249.43元/QALY,NMB为96.52~169.86元/人,其中40~49岁年龄组的ICER最低,NMB最高。单因素敏感性分析结果显示,贴现率、丙肝抗体（抗-HCV）检测成本、人群抗-HCV阳性率和直接抗病毒药物治疗成本对经济学评价影响较大,但改变参数取值,结论不变。概率敏感性分析结果表明模型分析结果稳定。结论 医疗机构探索动员20~59岁普通人群进行HCV检测具有较好的成本效果,以40~49岁年龄组人群的HCV检测成本效果最佳。在我国普通人群中实施HCV检测的“愿检尽检”策略,能降低人群丙肝疾病负担。     

Cost-Effectiveness of the Wellness Incentives and Navigation (WIN) Program

ObjectivesPromoting patient involvement in managing co-occurring physical and mental health conditions is increasingly recognized as critical to improving outcomes and controlling costs in this growing chronically ill population. The main objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of the Wellness Incentives and Navigation (WIN) intervention as part of a longitudinal randomized pragmatic clinical trial for chronically ill Texas Medicaid enrollees with co-occurring physical and mental health conditions.MethodsThe WIN intervention used a personal navigator, motivational interviewing, and a flexible wellness expense account to increase patient activation, that is, the patient’s knowledge, skills, and confidence in managing their self-care and co-occurring physical and mental health conditions. Regression models were fit to both participant-level quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total costs of care (including the intervention) controlling for demographics, health status, poverty, Medicaid managed care plan, intervention group, and baseline health utility and costs. Incremental costs and QALYs were calculated based on the difference in predicted costs and QALYs under intervention versus usual care and were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Confidence intervals were calculated using Fieller’s method, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe mean ICER for the intervention compared with usual care was $12 511 (95% CI $8971-$16 842), with a sizable majority of participants (70%) having ICERs below $40 000. The WIN intervention also produced higher QALY increases for participants who were sicker at baseline compared to those who were healthier at baseline.ConclusionThe WIN intervention shows considerable promise as a cost-effective intervention in this challenging chronically ill population.     

An exploratory case study of the impact of expanding cost-effectiveness analysis for second-line nivolumab for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada: Does it make a difference?

IntroductionHealth technology appraisal agencies often rely on cost-effectiveness analyses to inform coverage decisions for new treatments. These assessments, however, frequently measure a treatment’s value from the payer’s perspective, and may not capture value generated from reduced caregiving costs, increased productivity, value based on patient risk preferences, option value or the insurance value to non-patients.MethodsTo examine how using a broader societal perspective of treatment value affects cost-effectiveness estimates, this case study analyzed the net monetary benefit (NMB) of second-line nivolumab treatment of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. The comparator was treatment with docetaxel. NMB was measured from three perspectives: (i) traditional payer, (ii) traditional societal and (iii) broad societal.ResultsNivolumab was more effective (increased quality-adjusted life years by 0.66 versus docetaxel), but also increased costs by $100,168 CAD. When valuing a quality-adjusted life year at $150,000, the net monetary benefit from the payer perspective suggested that costs modestly exceed benefits (NMB: −$1031). Adopting a societal perspective, however, nivolumab’s benefits outweighed its costs (NMB: +$6752 and +$91,084 from the traditional and broad societal perspectives, respectively).ConclusionBroadening cost-effectiveness analysis beyond the traditional payer perspective had a significant impact on the result and should be considered in order to capture all treatment benefits and costs of societal relevance.     

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of COVID-19 Interventions: Considerations of Non-Health Impacts and Distributional Issues

ObjectivesThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of COVID-19 interventions and to examine whether and how these studies incorporate non-health impacts and distributional concerns.MethodsWe searched the National Institutes of Health’s COVID-19 Portfolio as of May 20, 2021, and supplemented our search with additional sources. We included original articles, including preprints, evaluating both the health and economic effects of a COVID-19–related intervention. Using a pre-specified data collection form, 2 reviewers independently screened, reviewed, and extracted information about the study characteristics, intervention types, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We used an Impact Inventory to catalog the types of non-health impacts considered.ResultsWe included 70 articles, almost half of which were preprints. Most articles (56%) included at least one non-health impact, but fewer (21%) incorporated non-economic consequences. Few articles (17%) examined subgroups of interest. After excluding negative ICERs, the median ICER for the entire sample (n = 243 ratios) was $67,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (interquartile range [IQR] $9000-$893,000/QALY). Interventions including a pharmaceutical component yielded a median ICER of $93,000/QALY (IQR $4000-$7,809,000/QALY), whereas interventions including a non-pharmaceutical component were slightly more cost-effective overall with a median ICER of $81,000/QALY (IQR $12,000-$1,034,000/QALY). Interventions reported to be highly cost-effective were treatment, public information campaigns, quarantining identified contacts/cases, canceling public events, and social distancing.ConclusionsOur review highlights the lack of consideration of non-health and distributional impacts among COVID-19–related economic evaluations. Accounting for non-health impacts and distributional effects is essential for comprehensive assessment of interventions’ value and imperative for generating cost-effectiveness evidence for both current and future pandemics.     

Moving Beyond Quality-Adjusted Life-Years in Elderly Care: How Can Multicriteria Decision Analysis Complement Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Local-Level Decision Making

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate how multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) could complement cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to support investment decisions in elderly care at local level.MethodsWe used an integrated elderly care program in The Netherlands as a case study to demonstrate the application of both methods. In a 12-month quasi-experimental study (n = 384), data on the following outcome measures were collected: quality-adjusted life-years (CEA) and physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person centeredness, continuity of care, and costs (MCDA). We performed regression analysis on inversed probability weighted data and controlled for potential confounders to obtain a double robust estimate of the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined uncertainty for both methods.ResultsThe integrated elderly care program was not likely (ie, 36%) to be cost-effective according to the CEA (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios: €88 249 from a societal perspective) using the conventional Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold (ie, €50 000). The MCDA demonstrated that informal caregivers and professionals slightly preferred the intervention over usual care, driven by enjoyment of life and person centeredness. Patients did not prefer either the intervention or usual care, whereas payers and policy makers slightly preferred usual care, mainly due to higher costs of the intervention.ConclusionsMCDA could provide local-level decision makers with a broader measurement of effectiveness by including outcomes beyond health and longevity and the preferences of multiple stakeholders. This additional information could foster the acceptability and implementability of cost-effective innovations in elderly care.     

乙型肝炎母婴阻断策略成本效果可支付性分析

目的 分析我国乙型肝炎（乙肝）母婴阻断策略的成本效果价值,探索支付意愿和预算规模对项目持续投入的影响。方法 以乙肝母婴阻断为研究策略,不接种为对照策略,采用决策分析马尔科夫模型,以我国2013年出生人口数为队列人群,通过TreeAge Pro 2015软件实现模拟运行。分别从全社会和支付者角度计算成本,效果包括乙肝相关疾病人数和质量调整生命年（QALYs）,策略间比较采用增量成本效果比（ICER）。由敏感性分析明确各参数的不确定性,绘制成本效果可支付曲线评价策略的可支付性。结果 接受乙肝母婴阻断后终其一生所承担的成本为4 063.5元/人,比不接种节省37 829.7元/人。人均获得QALYs为24.516 1,与不接种策略相比增加明显,且可以减少乙肝相关疾病的发生。从全社会角度看,乙肝母婴阻断与不接种相比,每多获得一个QALYs分别可节省59 136.6元,根据本研究成本效果阈值,说明乙肝母婴阻断具有成本效果价值。一维、多维和概率敏感性分析显示,上述结果稳定可靠。成本效果可接受曲线显示,结果不会因公众支付意愿变化而影响,且研究策略完全实现的支付意愿小于成本效果阈值。可支付分析显示,我国实施该策略的年预算在5.904亿~6.888亿元,不会超出财政支付能力;同一支付意愿下,年预算越高本研究策略具有经济性及可支付性的概率越高,只有当年预算达到6.888亿元,该策略才能完全实现。结论 我国推行的乙肝母婴阻断策略具有成本效果价值,并未超出公众支付意愿和财政预算能力,顺应了全球消除乙肝的目标要求,值得大力实施和推广。     

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.     

Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialized Breathlessness Service Versus Usual Care for Patients With Advanced Diseases

ObjectivesThe Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS) significantly improved control of breathlessness measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery in a randomized controlled fast track trial with waitlist group design spanning 8 weeks in Germany. This study aimed to assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of MBS from a societal perspective.MethodsData included generic (5-level version of EQ-5D) health-related quality of life and disease-specific CRQ Mastery. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on 5-level version of EQ-5D utilities valued with German time trade-off. Direct medical costs and productivity loss were calculated based on standardized unit costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness–acceptance curves were calculated using adjusted mean differences (AMD) in costs (gamma-distributed model) and both effect parameters (Gaussian-distributed model) and performing 1000 simultaneous bootstrap replications. Potential gender differences were investigated in stratified analyses.ResultsBetween March 2014 and April 2019, 183 eligible patients were enrolled. MBS intervention demonstrated significantly better effects regarding generic (AMD of QALY gains of 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0003 to 0.008) and disease-specific health-related quality of life at nonsignificantly higher costs (AMD of €605 [95% CI ?1109 to 2550]). At the end of the intervention, the ICER was €152 433/QALY (95% CI ?453 545 to 1 625 903) and €1548/CRQ Mastery point (95% CI ?3093 to 10 168). Intervention costs were on average €357 (SD = 132). Gender-specific analyses displayed dominance for MBS in males and higher effects coupled with significantly higher costs in females.ConclusionsOur results show a high ICER for MBS. Considering dominance for MBS in males, implementing MBS on approval within the German health care system should be considered.     

Probabilistic cost-utility analysis and expected value of perfect information for the Oncotype multigenic test: a discrete event simulation model

ObjectiveTo carry out a cost-utility analysis of the application of the Oncotype genomic test to inform the decision to use or not to use chemotherapy in the Basque Country (Spain).MethodThe cost-utility study was carried out using a discrete event simulation model representing the natural history of breast cancer. The decision of treatment with chemotherapy based on Oncotype was compared with the standard of treatment based on clinical-pathological criteria. The model included clinical data from Basque hospitals and the literature and was processed by deterministic and probabilistic analysis to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the cost-effectiveness plane, the acceptability curve and the expected value of perfect information. The study adopted both a health and societal perspective.ResultsFrom a health perspective, the deterministic analysis estimated an ICER for Oncotype of 17,453 euros/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), discount included, and 9,613 euros/QALY without the discount. Eighty five percent (85%) of the simulations were below the efficiency threshold for Spain. The parametric variability associated with the Oncotype results was the main uncertainty factor in the decision.ConclusionsOncotype is a cost-effective intervention from a health system perspective since each QALY gained costs less than 25,000 euros. From a societal perspective, it is dominant since it provides greater health and is accompanied by cost savings.     

A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,Applied to Riluzole

ObjectivesReexamine cost-effectiveness of riluzole in the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in light of recent advances in disease staging and understanding of stage-specific drug effect.MethodsALS was staged according to the “fine’til 9” (FT9) staging method. Stage-specific health utilities (EQ-5D, US valuation) were estimated from an institutional cohort, whereas literature informed costs and transition probabilities. Costs at 2018 prices were disaggregated into recurring costs (RCs) and “one-off” transition/“tollgate” costs (TCs). Five- and 10-year horizons starting in stage 1 disease were examined from healthcare sector and societal perspectives using Markov models to evaluate riluzole use, at a threshold of $100 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsMean EQ-5D utilities for stages 0 to 4 were 0.79, 0.74, 0.63, 0.54, and 0.46, respectively. From the healthcare sector perspective at the 5-year horizon, riluzole use contributed to 0.182 QALY gained at the cost difference of $12 348 ($5403 riluzole cost, $8870 RC and −$1925 TC differences), translating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $67 658/QALY. Transition probability variation contributed considerably to ICER uncertainty (−30.2% to +90.0%). ICER was sensitive to drug price and RCs, whereas higher TCs modestly reduced ICER due to delayed tollgates.ConclusionThis study provides a framework for health economic studies of ALS treatments using FT9 staging. Prospective stage-specific and disaggregated cost measurement is warranted for accurate future cost-effectiveness analyses. Appropriate separation of TCs from RCs substantially mitigates the high burden of background cost of care on the ICER.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Venetoclax Plus Obinutuzumab Versus Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab for the First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: An Extended Societal View

ObjectivesEfficacy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenO) compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (ClbO) for treatment-naïve adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with coexisting medical conditions was investigated in CLL14 (NCT02242942). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO versus ClbO for these patients from a Dutch societal perspective.MethodsA 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and value of information analysis (VOI).ResultsThe base case resulted in a discounted ICER −49 928 EUR/QALY gained (with incremental negative costs and positive effects). None of the ICERs resulted from deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses exceeded the chosen willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 000 EUR/QALY, and > 99% of the iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were cost-effective. VOI analyses showed a maximum expected value of eliminating all model parameter uncertainty of 183 591 EUR.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated VenO being dominant over ClbO in treatment-naïve adult patients with CLL assuming a Dutch societal perspective. We concluded that our results are robust as tested through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Additionally, the VOI analyses confirmed that our current evidence base is strong enough to generate reliable results for our study. Nevertheless, further research based on real-world data or longer follow-up period could further contribute to the robustness of the current study’s conclusions.     

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.

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric norovirus vaccination in daycare settings

ObjectiveNoroviruses are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States and outbreaks frequently occur in daycare settings. Results of norovirus vaccine trials have been promising, however there are open questions as to whether vaccination of daycare children would be cost-effective. We investigated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical norovirus vaccination for children in daycare settings compared to no vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using a disease transmission model of children attending daycare. Vaccination with a 90% coverage rate in addition to the observed standard of care (exclusion of symptomatic children from daycare) was compared to the observed standard of care. The main outcomes measures were infections and deaths averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness was analyzed from a societal perspective, including medical costs to children as well as productivity losses of parents, over a two-year time horizon. Data sources included outbreak surveillance data and published literature.ResultsA 50% efficacious norovirus vaccine averts 571.83 norovirus cases and 0.003 norovirus-related deaths per 10,000 children compared to the observed standard of care. A $200 norovirus vaccine that is 50% efficacious has a net cost increase of $178.10 per child and 0.025 more QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $7,028/QALY. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we estimated that a $200 vaccination with 50% efficacy was 94.0% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY threshold and 95.3% likely at a $150,000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDue to the large disease burden associated with norovirus, it is likely that vaccinating children in daycares could be cost-effective, even with modest vaccine efficacy and a high per-child cost of vaccination. Norovirus vaccination of children in daycare has a cost-effectiveness ratio similar to other commonly recommended childhood vaccines.     

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.     

The Net Benefit of Personalized Medicine: A Systematic Literature Review and Regression Analysis

ObjectivesAmidst conflicting expectations about the benefits of personalized medicine (PM) and the potentially high implementation costs, we reviewed the available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PM relative to non-PM.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of economic evaluations of PM and extracted data, including incremental quality-adjusted life-years (ΔQALYs) and incremental costs (Δcosts). ΔQALYs and Δcosts were combined with estimates of national cost-effectiveness thresholds to calculate incremental net monetary benefit (ΔNMB). Regression analyses were performed with these variables as dependent variables and PM intervention characteristics as independent variables. Random intercepts were used to cluster studies according to country.ResultsOf 4774 studies reviewed, 128 were selected, providing cost-effectiveness data for 279 PM interventions. Most studies were set in the United States (48%) and the United Kingdom (16%) and adopted a healthcare perspective (82%). Cancer treatments (60%) and pharmaceutical interventions (72%) occurred frequently. Prognostic tests (19%) and tests to identify (non)responders (37%) were least and most common, respectively. Industry sponsorship occurred in 32%. Median ΔQALYs, Δcosts, and ΔNMB per individual were 0.03, Int$575, and Int$18, respectively. We found large heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness. Regression analysis showed that gene therapies were associated with higher ΔQALYs than other interventions. PM interventions for neoplasms brought higher ΔNMB than PM interventions for other conditions. Nonetheless, average ΔNMB in the ‘neoplasm' group was found to be negative.ConclusionsPM brings improvements in health but often at a high cost, resulting in 0 to negative ΔNMB on average. Pricing policies may be needed to reduce the costs of interventions with negative ΔNMB.     

Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment in sick-listed patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized, controlled trial with one-year follow-up

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a return-to-work outpatient multidisciplinary treatment programme for sick-listed workers with non-specific upper extremity musculoskeletal complaints. Methods: A randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up was carried out. Thirty-eight subjects were allocated to multidisciplinary treatment (intervention, n=23), or to usual care provided by occupational health services (n=15). The intervention consisted of psychological and physical sessions provided by a medical specialist, a psychologist, a physiotherapist and an occupational therapist. It aims at reconditioning, “de-medicalizing”, unrestrained moving and return-to-work. The intervention process was evaluated on compliance to the protocol and the effectiveness of its components. The individual outcome variable was the severity of complaints. The societal outcomes included return-to-work and costs. Measurements were performed at baseline and after 2, 6 and 12 months. Mixed model analyses were used for analysis. Results: The intervention achieves its aims: physical disabilities (P=0.039), kinesiophobia (P<0.001) and physical functioning (P=0.016) improved significantly as compared to usual care. In addition, the intervention was significantly more effective in reducing the severity of complaints than usual care. The intervention was equally effective compared to usual care in terms of return-to-work (86% in the intervention group vs. 73% in the usual care group). The extra total costs and the extra gains in terms of return-to-work were not significantly higher for the intervention as compared to usual care after 12 months. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary treatment affects individuals positively, but shows no significant difference in (cost-) effectiveness on the societal level as compared to usual care.