Screening for and Treating Postpartum Depression and Psychosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objectives Postpartum depression impacts 6.5–12.9% of U.S. women. Postpartum depression is associated with impaired bonding and development, marital discord, suicide, and infanticide. However, the current standard of care is to not screen women for postpartum depression. This study modeled the cost-effectiveness of physicians screening for and treating postpartum depression and psychosis in partnership with a psychiatrist. Methods This study follows a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women experiencing one live birth over a 2-year time horizon. We used a decision tree model to obtain the outcomes of screening for and treating postpartum depression and psychosis using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. We use a Medicaid payer perspective because they cover approximately 50% of births in the U.S. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention is measured in cost per remission achieved and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. We conducted both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Screening for and treating postpartum depression and psychosis produced 29 more healthy women at a cost of $943 per woman. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the intervention branch compared to usual care were $13,857 per QALY gained (below the commonly accepted willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained) and $10,182 per remission achieved. These results were robust in both the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of input parameters. Conclusions for Practice Screening for and treating postpartum depression is a cost-effective intervention and should be considered as part of usual postnatal care, which aligns with the recently proposed recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

     

Cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands in different age groups

Objective

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening smokers and ex-smokers for lung cancer in the Netherlands.

Methods

A Markov model was used to evaluate the health effects and costs of lung cancer screening from the healthcare perspective. The effects and costs of ten screening scenarios with different start and stop ages of screening were examined across a lifetime horizon in a cohort of 100,000 smokers and ex- smokers 50 years and older.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50–60 years, 50–70 years, and 50 years and older are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 20,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Screening 50–60-year-old smokers and ex-smokers was the most cost-effective scenario with an ICER of € 14,094 per QALY gained. However, screening smokers and ex-smokers 50 years and older yielded the highest QALYs and resulted in an ICER of € 16,594 per QALY, which is below the threshold of € 20,000 per QALY. All screening scenarios compared to no screening resulted in CERs between the € 14,000 and € 16,000 per QALY gained. The efficiency frontier showed that screening smokers and ex-smokers in the age groups 70 years and older, 60–70 years, 60 years and older are excluded by extended dominance by no screening, screening smokers and ex-smokers aged 50–60 years and 50–70 years.

Conclusion

This study showed that lung cancer screening is cost-effective in the Netherlands.

     

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening Strategies Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review

Background

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to deliver appreciable reductions in mortality in high-risk patients. However, in an era of constrained medical resources, the cost-effectiveness of such a program needs to be demonstrated.

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature analyzing the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening using LDCT.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews—Health Technology Assessment, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Due to technological progress in CT, we limited our search to studies published between January 2000 and December 2014. Our search returned 393 unique results. After removing studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria, 13 studies remained. Costs are presented in 2014 US dollars (US$).

Results

The results from the economic evaluations identified in this review were varied. All identified studies reported outcomes using either additional survival (life-years gained) or quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs gained). Results ranged from US$18,452 to US$66,480 per LYG and US$27,756 to US$243,077 per QALY gained for repeated screening. The results of cost-effectiveness analyses were sensitive to several key model parameters, including the prevalence of lung cancer, cost of LDCT for screening, the proportion of lung cancer detected as localized disease, lead time bias, and, if included, the characteristics of a smoking cessation program.

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening program using LDCT remains to be conclusively resolved. It is expected that its cost-effectiveness will largely depend on identifying an appropriate group of high-risk subjects.

     

Cost-Effectiveness of the 21-Gene Assay for Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Early Breast Cancer

ObjectivesAdjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer are complex. The 21-gene assay can potentially aid such decisions, but costs US $4175 per patient. Adjuvant! Online is a freely available decision aid. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using the 21-gene assay in conjunction with Adjuvant! Online, and of providing adjuvant chemotherapy conditional upon risk classification.MethodsA probabilistic Markov decision model simulated risk classification, treatment, and the natural history of breast cancer in a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old women with lymph node–negative, estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu–negative early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness was considered from an Ontario public-payer perspective by deriving the lifetime incremental cost (2012 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for each strategy, and the probability each strategy is cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY.ResultsThe 21-gene assay has an incremental cost per QALY in patients at low, intermediate, or high Adjuvant Online! risk of $22,440 (probability cost-effective 78.46%), $2,526 (99.40%), or $1,111 (99.82%), respectively. In patients at low (high) 21-gene assay risk, adjuvant chemotherapy increases (reduces) costs and worsens (improves) health outcomes. For patients at intermediate 21-gene assay risk and low, intermediate, or high Adjuvant! Online risk, chemotherapy has an incremental cost per QALY of $44,088 (50.59%), $1,776 (77.65%), or $1,778 (82.31%), respectively.ConclusionsThe 21-gene assay appears cost-effective, regardless of Adjuvant! Online risk. Adjuvant chemotherapy appears cost-effective for patients at intermediate or high 21-gene assay risk, although this finding is uncertain in patients at intermediate 21-gene assay and low Adjuvant! Online risk.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography Based on Start Age and Interval in China: Modeling Study

BackgroundLung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer-related death in China. The effectiveness of screening for lung cancer has been reported to reduce lung cancer–specific and overall mortality, although the cost-effectiveness, optimal start age, and screening interval remain unclear.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening among heavy smokers in China by incorporating start age and screening interval.MethodsA Markov state-transition model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening program in China. The evaluated screening strategies were based on a screening start age of 50-74 years and a screening interval of once or annually. Transition probabilities were obtained from the literature and validated, while cost parameters were derived from databases of local medical insurance bureaus. A societal perspective was adopted. The outputs of the model included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lung cancer–specific mortality, with future costs and outcomes discounted by 5%. A currency exchange rate of 1 CNY=0.1557 USD is applicable. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for different screening strategies relative to nonscreening.ResultsThe proposed model suggested that screening led to a gain of 0.001-0.042 QALYs per person as compared with the findings in the nonscreening cohort. Meanwhile, one-time and annual screenings were associated with reductions in lung cancer–related mortality of 0.004%-1.171% and 6.189%-15.819%, respectively. The ICER ranged from 119,974.08 to 614,167.75 CNY per QALY gained relative to nonscreening. Using the World Health Organization threshold of 212,676 CNY per QALY gained, annual screening from a start age of 55 years and one-time screening from the age of 65 years can be considered as cost-effective in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ConclusionsThis economic evaluation revealed that a population-based lung cancer screening program in China for heavy smokers using low-dose computed tomography was cost-effective for annual screening of smokers aged 55-74 years and one-time screening of those aged 65-74 years. Moreover, annual lung cancer screening should be promoted in China to realize the benefits of a guideline-recommended screening program.     

Offering Lung Cancer Screening to High-Risk Medicare Beneficiaries Saves Lives and Is Cost-Effective: An Actuarial Analysis

Background

By a wide margin, lung cancer is the most significant cause of cancer death in the United States and worldwide. The incidence of lung cancer increases with age, and Medicare beneficiaries are often at increased risk. Because of its demonstrated effectiveness in reducing mortality, lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) imaging will be covered without cost-sharing starting January 1, 2015, by nongrandfathered commercial plans. Medicare is considering coverage for lung cancer screening.

Objective

To estimate the cost and cost-effectiveness (ie, cost per life-year saved) of LDCT lung cancer screening of the Medicare population at high risk for lung cancer.

Methods

Medicare costs, enrollment, and demographics were used for this study; they were derived from the 2012 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) beneficiary files and were forecast to 2014 based on CMS and US Census Bureau projections. Standard life and health actuarial techniques were used to calculate the cost and cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening. The cost, incidence rates, mortality rates, and other parameters chosen by the authors were taken from actual Medicare data, and the modeled screenings are consistent with Medicare processes and procedures.

Results

Approximately 4.9 million high-risk Medicare beneficiaries would meet criteria for lung cancer screening in 2014. Without screening, Medicare patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer have an average life expectancy of approximately 3 years. Based on our analysis, the average annual cost of LDCT lung cancer screening in Medicare is estimated to be $241 per person screened. LDCT screening for lung cancer in Medicare beneficiaries aged 55 to 80 years with a history of ≥30 pack-years of smoking and who had smoked within 15 years is low cost, at approximately $1 per member per month. This assumes that 50% of these patients were screened. Such screening is also highly cost-effective, at <$19,000 per life-year saved.

Conclusion

If all eligible Medicare beneficiaries had been screened and treated consistently from age 55 years, approximately 358,134 additional individuals with current or past lung cancer would be alive in 2014. LDCT screening is a low-cost and cost-effective strategy that fits well within the standard Medicare benefit, including its claims payment and quality monitoring.Lung cancer is a lethal disease that claims the lives of more people in the United States annually than the next 4 most lethal cancers combined, which are, in order, colon, breast, pancreas, and prostate cancers.1,2 In the United States, an estimated 224,210 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer, and an estimated 159,260 people will die of the disease in 2014.3 The incidence of lung cancer increases with age,4 and the risk increases with the cumulative effects of past smoking. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries are at significant risk.5On December 31, 2013, lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was rated as a level “B” recommendation by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF),6 a panel of independent experts convened by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to evaluate the strength of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms of preventive services.7 The USPSTF recommendation applies to people aged 55 to 80 years with a history of heavy smoking.6 LDCT is an imaging technology that enables 3-dimensional visualization of internal body structures, including the lungs, using low doses of radiation.Under the Affordable Care Act, the “B” recommendation means that LDCT lung cancer screening must be covered without cost-sharing by qualified health plans starting January 1, 2015.6,8 Qualified health plans include commercial insurance and self-insured benefit plans, with the exclusion of grandfathered plans. Several private insurers have initiated LDCT screening coverage in advance of the 2015 requirement.9 Furthermore, versions of the USPSTF recommendations have been adopted essentially by every major academic body with an interest in lung cancer, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American College of Chest Physicians, and the American Cancer Society.Medicare has begun a national coverage analysis to determine whether LDCT lung cancer screening meets its criteria for coverage, which includes whether screening is reasonable and necessary for early detection, whether the service has an “A” or a “B” recommendation by the USPSTF, and whether screening is appropriate for Medicare beneficiaries.High doses of radiation can be harmful. LDCT can be performed at very low doses of <0.7 mSv per procedure10 by comparison, the annual natural background radiation in New York City (sea level) is 3 mSv. LDCT technology refinements and protocol optimization have translated into patient benefits, supporting the detection of ever-smaller lung cancers, reducing the rate of surgical procedures, and providing higher cure rates.11–14Advances in LDCT technology, promising results from nonrandomized trials,14 and unchanged survival statistics over the previous 30 years, led to the implementation of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), the most expensive and one of the largest randomized screening trials ever sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.13 The trial of 53,454 people aged 55 to 74 years at high risk for lung cancer was conducted to determine whether LDCT screening could reduce mortality from lung cancer. Participants in this 2-arm US study received 3 annual screenings with either an LDCT or a chest x-ray. Based on the study protocol, the trial was stopped when findings demonstrated a relative reduction of 20% in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT arm versus the chest x-ray arm.13Observational data and epidemiologic arguments for breast cancer also suggest that additional rounds of screening would reduce lung cancer mortality by much more than 20%.15–22 Other large studies have shown that computed tomography (CT) screening is associated with a high proportion (much higher than 70%) of the lung cancer diagnoses being early stage15–17,21 compared with 15% in the national data.23 Long-term survival rates of approximately 80% have been reported for patients with lung cancer who are diagnosed by CT screening12,15,16 compared with a 16.8% 5-year survival rate from the national data.23

KEY POINTS

• ▸ Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States and worldwide.
• ▸ Because the risk increases with age and with a history of smoking, some Medicare beneficiaries are at high risk for this type of cancer.
• ▸ Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) has been shown to reduce mortality from lung cancer by more than 20%.
• ▸ Under healthcare reform, LDCT must be covered without cost-sharing by nongrandfathered commercial health plans beginning in 2015.
• ▸ Based on this new analysis, LDCT screening of high-risk Medicare beneficiaries is cost-effective and will cost approximately $1 per member per month.
• ▸ The average annual cost of such a screening policy is estimated to be $241 for a Medicare beneficiary screened.
• ▸ Given all causes of mortality, without screening, Medicare patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer have an average of 3 years life expectancy.
• ▸ With screening, these patients would have an additional 4 years of additional life expectancy incremental to the life expectancy without screening.
• ▸ If all eligible beneficiaries had been screened and treated consistently from age 55 years, approximately 358,134 additional individuals with current or past lung cancer would be alive in 2014.

One of the coauthors of this article was the lead author of an actuarial analysis of LDCT lung cancer screening for the commercially insured population.24 This report used similar methodology, types of structures, and data to examine lung cancer screening for the Medicare program. The Medicare program faces significant budget limitations, and any new coverage benefit will face scrutiny regarding its costs and benefits.The purpose of the present study was to estimate the hypothetical 2014 costs and benefits associated with the responsible implementation of widespread lung cancer screening in the high-risk US population covered by Medicare.     

Cancer-Specific Mortality,All-Cause Mortality,and Overdiagnosis in Lung Cancer Screening Trials: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSEBenefit of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in reducing lung cancer–specific and all-cause mortality is unclear. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess its associations with outcomes.METHODSWe searched the literature and previous systematic reviews to identify randomized controlled trials comparing LDCT screening with usual care or chest radiography. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were lung cancer–specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and the cumulative incidence ratio of lung cancer between screened and unscreened groups as a measure of overdiagnosis.RESULTSMeta-analysis was based on 8 trials with 90,475 patients that had a low risk of bias. There was a significant reduction in lung cancer–specific mortality with LDCT screening (relative risk = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89); the estimated absolute risk reduction was 0.4% (number needed to screen = 250). The reduction in all-cause mortality was not statistically significant (relative risk = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-1.01), but the absolute reduction was consistent with that for lung cancer–specific mortality (0.34%; number needed to screen = 294). In the studies with the longest duration of follow-up, the incidence of lung cancer was 25% higher in the screened group, corresponding to a 20% rate of overdiagnosis.CONCLUSIONSThis meta-analysis showing a significant reduction in lung cancer–specific mortality, albeit with a tradeoff of likely overdiagnosis, supports recommendations to screen individuals at elevated risk for lung cancer with LDCT.Key words: lung cancer, cancer screening, mass screening, low-dose computed tomography, overdiagnosis, public health, preventive medicine, health services     

Variation in Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: A Methodological Review

ObjectivesThere is significant heterogeneity in the results of published model-based economic evaluations of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer. We sought to understand and demonstrate how these models differ.MethodsAn expansion and update of a previous systematic review (N = 19). Databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) were searched. Studies were included if strategies involving (single or multiple) LDCT screening were compared with no screening or other imaging modalities, in a population at risk of lung cancer. More detailed data extraction of studies from the previous review was conducted. Studies were critically appraised using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list.ResultsA total of 16 new studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total of 35 studies. There are geographic and temporal differences and differences in screening intervals and eligible populations. Studies varied in the types of models used, for example, decision tree, Markov, and microsimulation models. Most conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (using life-years gained) or cost-utility analysis. The potential for overdiagnosis was considered in many models, unlike with other potential consequences of screening. Some studies report considering lead-time bias, but fewer mention length bias. Generally, the more recent studies, involving more complex modeling, tended to meet more of the critical appraisal criteria, with notable exceptions.ConclusionsThere are many differences across the economic evaluations contributing to variation in estimates of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening for lung cancer. Several methodological factors and evidence needs have been highlighted that will require consideration in future economic evaluations to achieve better agreement.     

Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectivesTo examine evidence on benefits and harms of screening average to high-risk adults for lung cancer using chest radiology (CXR), sputum cytology (SC) and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT).MethodsThis systematic review was conducted to provide up to date evidence for Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) lung cancer screening guidelines. Four databases were searched to March 31, 2015 along with utilizing a previous Cochrane review search. Randomized trials reporting benefits were included; any design was included for harms. Meta-analyses were performed if possible. PROSPERO #CRD42014009984.ResultsThirty-four studies were included. For lung cancer mortality there was no benefit of CXR screening, with or without SC. Pooled results from three small trials comparing LDCT to usual care found no significant benefits for lung cancer mortality. One large high quality trial showed statistically significant reductions of 20% in lung cancer mortality over a follow-up of 6.5 years, for LDCT compared with CXR. LDCT screening was associated with: overdiagnosis of 10.99–25.83%; 11.18 deaths and 52.03 patients with major complications per 1000 undergoing invasive follow-up procedures; median estimate for false positives of 25.53% for baseline/once-only screening and 23.28% for multiple rounds; and 9.74 and 5.28 individuals per 1000 screened, with benign conditions underwent minor and major invasive follow-up procedures.ConclusionThe evidence does not support CXR screening with or without sputum cytology for lung cancer. High quality evidence showed that in selected high-risk individuals, LDCT screening significantly reduced lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. However, for its implementation at a population level, the current evidence warrants the development of standardized practices for screening with LDCT and follow-up invasive testing to maximize accuracy and reduce potential associated harms.     

The Influence of US Drug Price Dynamics on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Biologics

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses.MethodsWe evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis.ResultsTezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%.ConclusionTwo biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices.     

The Economic Potential of Smoking Cessation Interventions at the Point of Diagnosis of Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

ObjectivesStopping smoking has proven benefits in nearly all illnesses but the impact and health economic benefits of stopping smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer are less well defined. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation (SC) services for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer against current usual care, where patients are unlikely to receive SC service referral.MethodsA health economic model was constructed in Excel. The modelled population comprised of patients with a new diagnosis of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the LungCast data set (Clinical Trials Identifier NCT01192256) were used to estimate model inputs. A structured search of published literature identified inputs not represented in LungCast, including healthcare resource use and costs. Costs were estimated from a 2020/2021 UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. The model estimated the incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC receiving targeted SC intervention than those receiving no intervention. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses explored input and data set uncertainty.ResultsIn the 5-year base case, the model estimated an incremental cost of £14 904 per QALY gained through SC intervention. Sensitivity analysis estimated an outcome range of between £9935 and £32 246 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the estimates of relative quit rates and expected healthcare resource use.ConclusionThis exploratory analysis indicates that SC intervention for smokers with patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC should be a cost-effective use of UK National Health Service resources. Additional research with focused costing is needed to confirm this positioning.     

Cost effectiveness of an internet-delivered lifestyle intervention in primary care patients with high cardiovascular risk

ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of an online adaptation of the diabetes prevention program (ODPP) lifestyle intervention.MethodsODPP was a before–after evaluation of a weight loss intervention comprising 16 weekly and 8 monthly lessons, incorporating behavioral tools and regular, brief, web-based individualized counseling in an overweight/obese cohort (mean age 52, 76% female, 92% white, 28% with diabetes). A Markov model was developed to estimate ODPP cost effectiveness compared with usual care (UC) to reduce metabolic risk over 10 years. Intervention costs and weight change outcomes were obtained from the study; other model parameters were based on published reports. In the model, diabetes risk was a function of weight change with and without the intervention.ResultsCompared to UC, the ODPP in our cohort cost $14,351 and $29,331 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the health care system and societal perspectives, respectively. In a hypothetical cohort without diabetes, the ODPP cost $7777 and $18,263 per QALY gained, respectively. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses, but enrolling cohorts with lower annual risk of developing diabetes (≤ 1.8%), enrolling fewer participants (≤ 15), or increasing the hourly cost (≥$91.20) or annual per-participant time (≥ 1.45 h) required for technical support could increase ODPP cost to >$20,000 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, ODPP was cost-effective in 20–58% of model iterations using an acceptability threshold of $20,000, 73–92% at $50,000, and 95–99% at $100,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThe ODPP may offer an economical approach to combating overweight and obesity.     

Linezolid Versus Vancomycin in the Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Cost-Utility Analysis Incorporating Results from the ZEPHyR Trial

ObjectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin versus linezolid in the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonias incorporating results from a recent prospective, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial in adults with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia.MethodsA decision-analytic model examining the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia was created. Publicly available cost, efficacy, and utility data populated relevant model variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied parameters in 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and univariate sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of model uncertainties and the robustness of our conclusions.ResultsResults indicated that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increased 6% ($22,594 vs. $23,860) by using linezolid versus vancomycin for nosocomial pneumonia. The incremental cost per QALY gained by using linezolid over vancomycin was $6,089, and the incremental cost per life saved was $68,615 with the use of linezolid. Vancomycin dominated linezolid in the subset of patients with documented MRSA. The incremental cost per QALY gained using linezolid if no mortality benefit exists between agents or a 60-day time horizon was analyzed was $19,608,688 and $443,662, respectively.ConclusionsLinezolid may be a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the empiric treatment of patients with suspected MRSA nosocomial pneumonia; however, results of our model were highly variable on a number of important variables and assumptions including mortality differences and time frame analyzed.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer and Age Effect in Older Women

BackgroundPrevious economic evaluations compared specific chemotherapy agents using input parameters from clinical trials and resource utilization costs. Cost-effectiveness of treatment groups (drug classes) using community-level effectiveness and cost data, however, has not been assessed for elderly patients with breast cancer.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy regimens by age and disease stage under “real-world” conditions for patients with breast cancer.MethodsThe Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data were used to identify patients with breast cancer with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II/IIIa, hormone receptor–negative (estrogen receptor–negative and progesterone receptor–negative) patients from 1992 to 2009. Patients were categorized into three adjuvant treatment groups: 1) no chemotherapy, 2) anthracycline, and 3) non–anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Median life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis and were evaluated against average total health care costs (2013 US dollars).ResultsA total of 4575 patients (propensity score–matched) were included for the primary analysis. The anthracycline group experienced 12.05 QALYs and mean total health care costs of $119,055, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,688 per QALY gained as compared with the no chemotherapy group (QALYs 7.81; average health care cost $86,383). The non–anthracycline-based group was dominated by the anthracycline group with lower QALYs (9.56) and higher health care costs ($122,791). Base-case results were found to be consistent with the best-case and worst-case scenarios for utility assignments. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied by age group (range $3,790–$90,405 per QALY gained).ConclusionsAnthracycline-based chemotherapy was found cost-effective for elderly patients with early stage (stage I, II, IIIa) breast cancer considering the US threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Further research may be needed to characterize differential effects across age groups.     

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.     

The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization

BackgroundResearchers are working at unprecedented speed to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the value of a hypothetical vaccine and its potential public health impact when prioritization is required due to supply constraints.MethodsA Markov cohort model was used to estimate COVID-19 related direct medical costs and deaths in the United States (US), with and without implementation of a 60% efficacious vaccine. To prioritize the vaccine under constrained supply, the population was divided into tiers based on age; risk and age; and occupation and age; and outcomes were compared across one year under various supply assumptions. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no vaccine was calculated for the entire adult population and for each tier in the three prioritization schemes.ResultsThe incremental cost per QALY gained for the US adult population was $8,200 versus no vaccination. For the tiers at highest risk of complications from COVID-19, such as those ages 65 years and older, vaccination was cost-saving compared to no vaccination. The cost per QALY gained increased to over $94,000 for those with a low risk of hospitalization and death following infection. Results were most sensitive to infection incidence, vaccine price, the cost of treating COVID-19, and vaccine efficacy. Under the most optimistic supply scenario, the hypothetical vaccine may prevent 31% of expected deaths. As supply becomes more constrained, only 23% of deaths may be prevented. In lower supply scenarios, prioritization becomes more important to maximize the number of deaths prevented.ConclusionsA COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be good value for money (cost per QALY gained <$50,000). The speed at which an effective vaccine can be made available will determine how much morbidity and mortality may be prevented in the US.     

Is further research on adult pneumococcal vaccine uptake improvement programs worthwhile? Α value of information analysis

BackgroundPneumococcal vaccination policy for US adults is evolving, but previous research has shown that programs to increase vaccine uptake are economically favorable, despite parameter uncertainty. Using value of information (VOI) analysis and prior analyses, we examine the value of further research on vaccine uptake program parameters.MethodsIn US 50–64-year-olds, current vaccine recommendations with and without an uptake program were analyzed. In older adults, current recommendations and an alternative strategy (polysaccharide vaccine for all, adding conjugate vaccine only for the immunocompromised) with and without uptake programs were examined. Uptake program parameters were derived from a clinical trial (absolute uptake increase 12.3% [range 0–25%], per-person cost $1.78 [range $0.70–$2.26]), with other parameters obtained from US databases. VOI analyses incorporated probabilistic sensitivity analysis outputs into R-based regression techniques.ResultsIn 50–64-year-olds, an uptake program cost $54,900/QALY gained compared to no uptake program. For ages ≥65, the program cost $287,000/QALY gained with the alternative strategy and $765,000/QALY with current recommendations. In younger adults, population-level expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $59.7 million at $50,000/QALY gained and $2.8 million at $100,000/QALY gained. In older adults, EVPI values ranged from ~$1 million to $34.5 million at $100,000 and $200,000/QALY thresholds. The population expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) for combined uptake program cost and uptake improvement parameters in the younger population was $368,700 at $50,000/QALY and $43,900 at $100,000/QALY gained thresholds. In older adults, population EVPPI for vaccine uptake program parameters was $0 at both thresholds, reaching a maximum value of $445,000 at a $225,000/QALY threshold. Other model parameters comprised larger components of the global EVPI.ConclusionVOI results do not support further research on pneumococcal vaccine uptake programs in adults at commonly cited US cost-effectiveness benchmarks. Further research to reduce uncertainty in other aspects of adult pneumococcal vaccination is justifiable.     

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information of Erlotinib,Afatinib, and Cisplatin-Pemetrexed for First-Line Treatment of Advanced EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

ObjectivesTo determine the cost-effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitors erlotinib or afatinib, or chemotherapy cisplatin-pemetrexed, for first-line treatment of advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer in the United States. We also assessed the expected benefit of further research to reduce uncertainty regarding which treatment is optimal.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, afatinib, and cisplatin-pemetrexed. Model transition and adverse-effect probabilities were from two published phase III trials: EURTAC (Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer) and LUX-Lung (Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma) 3. EURTAC survival estimates were corrected for patients entering the trial with more severe disease, compared with LUX-Lung 3. Health utilities and costs were from national estimates or the published literature. Inputs were modeled as distributions for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) analysis to estimate the expected benefit of reducing uncertainty regarding the decision of optimal treatment.ResultsIn the base case, both tyrosine kinase inhibitors were more cost-effective than cisplatin-pemetrexed. Erlotinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $61,809/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with afatinib. The acceptability curve showed that erlotinib was the optimal treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY (10-year population EVPI = $85.9 million). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY to $70,000/QALY (EVPI = $211.5 million–$261.8 million), however, there was considerable uncertainty whether erlotinib or afatinib was the optimal treatment.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that erlotinib is the preferred first-line treatment for advanced epithelial growth factor receptor mutation-positive non–small-cell lung cancer. Further research comparing erlotinib and afatinib is potentially justified, although accurate data are needed on the required cost and sample size of the trial.     

Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Burden Analyses on All First-Line Treatments of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

ObjectivesSeveral chemoimmunotherapy and targeted treatment regimens are approved as front-line therapies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We estimated for the 10-year cost-effectiveness of these treatment regimens and the economic burden of following the estimated risk-stratified 21 040 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnosed in 2020 for 10 years.MethodsA Markov model with 7 exclusive health states was specified over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness inputs were obtained from a novel network meta-analysis on the progression-free survival, overall survival curves, and time to next treatment. Costs and utilities inputs were included for each health state for each treatment and discounted at 3.0%/year. Life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for each treatment were determined. Using the lowest cost regimen as reference, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were estimated. The 10-year per-patient cost was determined by risk status and by initial treatment.ResultsVenetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab was the lowest cost regimen, hence the reference. Superior in effectiveness to all chemoimmunotherapies, it was cost saving. With the highest effectiveness gains at 6.26 LYs and 5.01 QALYs and despite being the most expensive regimen ($1 298 638 per patient), acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab yielded the best ICER ($409 343/LY gained) and ICUR ($501 236/QALY gained). The remaining ICERs of targeted therapies ranged from $512 101/LY gained to $793 236/LY gained and the ICURs from $579 737/QALY gained to $869 300/QALY gained. The 10-year postdiagnosis low/high (venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab/acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab) economic burden ranges were $42 690 to $98 665 for low-risk, $141 339 to $326 660 for intermediate-risk, and $273 650 to $632 453 for high-risk patients.ConclusionsCompared with venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab, chemoimmunotherapies are associated with less health benefits at higher cost. The targeted therapies achieve greater benefits at higher cost.