PharmacoEconomics最新文献

Background: Reporting standards of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) in health have not kept pace with the growth of this method, with multiple reviews calling for better reporting to improve transparency, assessment of validity and translation. A key missing piece has been the absence of a reporting checklist that details minimum standards of what should be reported, as exists for many other methods used in health economics.

Methods: This paper reports the development of a reporting checklist for DCEs in health, which involved a scoping review to identify potential items and a Delphi consensus study among 45 DCE experts internationally to select items and guide the wording and structure of the checklist. The Delphi study included a best-worst scaling study for prioritisation.

Conclusions: The final checklist is presented along with guidance on how to apply it. This checklist can be used by authors to ensure that sufficient detail of a DCE's methods are reported, providing reviewers and readers with the information they need to assess the quality of the study for themselves. Embedding this reporting checklist into standard practice for health DCEs offers an opportunity to improve consistency of reporting standards, thereby enabling transparency of review and facilitating comparison of studies and their translation into policy and practice.

There is increasing interest in the use of cure modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA) due to the development of new treatments that appear to offer the potential for cure in some patients. However, cure models are often not included in evidence dossiers submitted to HTA agencies, and they are relatively rarely relied upon to inform decision-making. This is likely due to a lack of understanding of how cure models work, what they assume, and how reliable they are. In this tutorial we explain why and when cure models may be useful for HTA, describe the key characteristics of mixture and non-mixture cure models, and demonstrate their use in a range of scenarios, providing Stata code. We highlight key issues that must be taken into account by analysts when fitting these models and by reviewers and decision-makers when interpreting their predictions. In particular, we note that flexible parametric non-mixture cure models have not been used in HTA, but they offer advantages that make them well suited to an HTA context when a cure assumption is valid but follow-up is limited.

Background: Health systems are moving towards value-based care, implementing new care models that allegedly aim beyond patient outcomes. Therefore, a policy and academic debate is underway regarding the definition of value in healthcare, the inclusion of costs in value metrics, and the importance of each value element. This study aimed to define healthcare value elements and assess their relative importance (RI) to the public in England.

Method: Using data from 26 semi-structured interviews and a literature review, and applying decision-theory axioms, we selected a comprehensive and applicable set of value-based elements. Their RI was determined using two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) based on Bayesian D-efficient DCE designs, with one DCE incorporating healthcare costs expressed as income tax rise. Respondent preferences were analysed using mixed logit models.

Results: Six value elements were identified: additional life-years, health-related quality of life, patient experience, target population size, equity, and cost. The DCE surveys were completed by 402 participants. All utility coefficients had the expected signs and were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Additional life-years (25.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.5-28.6%) and patient experience (25.2%; 95% CI 21.6-28.9%) received the highest RI, followed by target population size (22.4%; 95% CI 19.1-25.6%) and quality of life (17.6%; 95% CI 15.0-20.3%). Equity had the lowest RI (9.6%; 95% CI 6.4-12.1%), decreasing by 8.8 percentage points with cost inclusion. A similar reduction was observed in the RI of quality of life when cost was included.

Conclusion: The public prioritizes value elements not captured by conventional metrics, such as quality-adjusted life-years. Although cost inclusion did not alter the preference ranking, its inclusion in the value metric warrants careful consideration.

Background: Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) increasingly use models to predict long-term outcomes and translate trial data to real-world settings. Model structure uncertainty affects these predictions. This study compares pharmacometric against traditional pharmacoeconomic model evaluations for CUAs of sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).

Methods: A two-arm trial comparing sunitinib 37.5 mg daily with no treatment was simulated using a pharmacometric-based pharmacoeconomic model framework. Overall, four existing models [time-to-event (TTE) and Markov models] were re-estimated to the survival data and linked to logistic regression models describing the toxicity data [neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome (HFS)] to create traditional pharmacoeconomic model frameworks. All five frameworks were used to simulate clinical outcomes and sunitinib treatment costs, including a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) scenario.

Results: The pharmacometric model framework predicted that sunitinib treatment costs an additional 142,756 euros per quality adjusted life year (QALY) compared with no treatment, with deviations - 21.2% (discrete Markov), - 15.1% (continuous Markov), + 7.2% (TTE Weibull), and + 39.6% (TTE exponential) from the traditional model frameworks. The pharmacometric framework captured the change in toxicity over treatment cycles (e.g., increased HFS incidence until cycle 4 with a decrease thereafter), a pattern not observed in the pharmacoeconomic frameworks (e.g., stable HFS incidence over all treatment cycles). Furthermore, the pharmacoeconomic frameworks excessively forecasted the percentage of patients encountering subtherapeutic concentrations of sunitinib over the course of time (pharmacoeconomic: 24.6% at cycle 2 to 98.7% at cycle 16, versus pharmacometric: 13.7% at cycle 2 to 34.1% at cycle 16).

Conclusions: Model structure significantly influences CUA predictions. The pharmacometric-based model framework more closely represented real-world toxicity trends and drug exposure changes. The relevance of these findings depends on the specific question a CUA seeks to address.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to develop and compare utility value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30, using the preferences of the general public and cancer patients in Singapore, and to assess their measurement properties.

Methods: A total of 600 individuals from the general public were recruited using a multi-stage random sampling, along with 626 cancer patients with clinically confirmed diagnoses from outpatient clinics of the largest tertiary cancer hospital. Each participant valued 16 pairs of EORTC QLU-C10D health states using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Conditional logit models were used to analyze the DCE responses of the general public and cancer patients separately. Utility values were assessed for known-group validity and responsiveness in the cancer patients by comparing mean values across subgroups of patients and calculating standardized response means using longitudinal EORTC QLQ-C30 data, respectively.

Results: Physical functioning and pain had the most impact on utility for both cancer patients and general public groups. Worst health state utility values were -0.821 and -0.463 for the general public and cancer patients, respectively. Cancer patients' values were lower for mild-to-moderate health states but higher for moderately-to-highly impaired states compared with the general public's values. Both value sets discriminated between patients with differing characteristics and responded equally well to improved health status, but the cancer patients' value set was slightly more responsive to deteriorated health.

Conclusions: EORTC QLU-C10D value sets based on the preferences of the Singaporean general public and cancer patients exhibited differences in values but similar psychometric properties.

Background and objective: Accurately extrapolating survival beyond trial follow-up is essential in a health technology assessment where model choice often substantially impacts estimates of clinical and cost effectiveness. Evidence suggests standard parametric models often provide poor fits to long-term data from immuno-oncology trials. Palmer et al. developed an algorithm to aid the selection of more flexible survival models for these interventions. We assess the usability of the algorithm, identify areas for improvement and evaluate whether it effectively identifies models capable of accurate extrapolation.

Methods: We applied the Palmer algorithm to the CheckMate-649 trial, which investigated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We evaluated the algorithm's performance by comparing survival estimates from identified models using the 12-month data cut to survival observed in the 48-month data cut.

Results: The Palmer algorithm offers a systematic procedure for model selection, encouraging detailed analyses and ensuring that crucial stages in the selection process are not overlooked. In our study, a range of models were identified as potentially appropriate for extrapolating survival, but only flexible parametric non-mixture cure models provided extrapolations that were plausible and accurately predicted subsequently observed survival. The algorithm could be improved with minor additions around the specification of hazard plots and setting out plausibility criteria.

Conclusions: The Palmer algorithm provides a systematic framework for identifying suitable survival models, and for defining plausibility criteria for extrapolation validity. Using the algorithm ensures that model selection is based on explicit justification and evidence, which could reduce discordance in health technology appraisals.

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may approve health technologies on condition of more evidence generated only in research (OiR) or only with research (OwR). NICE specifies the information needed to comply with its request, although it may not necessarily guarantee good quality and timely evidence for re-appraisal, before reaching a final decision.

Aim: This study aimed to critically appraise the methods, quality and risk of bias of evidence generated in response to NICE OiR and OwR technology appraisal (TA) and highly specialised technologies (HSTs) recommendations.

Methods: NICE TAs (between March 2000 and September 2020) and HST evaluations (to October 2023) of medicines were reviewed. Conditional recommendations were analysed to identify the evidence requested by NICE for re-appraisal. The new evidence was analysed for compliance with NICE's request and assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for risk of bias in randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised evidence.

Results: NICE made 54 conditional recommendations from TAs (13 OiR and 41 OwR) and five conditional recommendations for HSTs (all OwR). Of these, 16 TAs presented additional evidence for re-appraisal (9 OiR [69%] and 7 OwR [17%]) and three HSTs (3 OwR [60%]). Two of the nine re-appraised TAs with OiR recommendation and four of the seven OwR complied fully with NICE's request for further evidence, while all three from the HSTs complied. The majority of re-appraised TAs and HSTs included evidence that was deemed to be at serious, high, moderate or unclear risk of bias. Among the 26 randomised controlled trials from TAs assessed, eight were categorised as having low risk of bias in all domains and ten had at least one domain as a high risk of bias. Reporting was unclear for the remainder. Twenty-two non-randomised studies, primarily single-arm studies, were susceptible to biases mostly due to the selection of participants and to confounding. Two HSTs provided evidence from randomised controlled trials which were classified as unclear or high risk of bias. All non-randomised evidence from HSTs were categorised as moderate or serious risk of bias.

Conclusions: There is widespread non-compliance with agreed data requests and important variation in the quality of evidence submitted in response to NICE conditional approval recommendations. Quality standards ought to be stipulated in respect to evidence contributing to re-appraisals following NICE conditional approval recommendations.

Objective: Chimeric antigen-receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is characterised by early phase data at the time of registration, high upfront cost and a complex manufacturing and administration process compared with standard therapies. Our objective was to compare the performance of different models to assess the cost effectiveness of CAR-T using a state-transition model (STM), partitioned survival model (PSM) and discrete event simulation (DES).

Methods: Individual data for tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) were used to populate the models. Costs and benefits were measured over a lifetime to generate a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model performance was compared quantitatively on the outcomes generated and a checklist developed summarising the components captured by each model type relevant to assessing cost effectiveness of CAR-T.

Results: Models generated similar results with base-case analyses ranging from an incremental cost per QALY of $96,074-$99,625. DES was the only model to specifically capture CAR-T wait time, demonstrating a substantial loss of benefit of CAR-T with increased wait time.

Conclusion: Although model type did not meaningfully impact base-case results, the ability to incorporate an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) and wait time are important elements to consider when selecting a model for CAR-T. DES provided greater flexibility compared with STM and PSM approaches to deal with the complex manufacturing and administration process that can lead to extended wait times and substantially reduce the benefit of CAR-T. This is an important consideration when selecting a model type for CAR-T, so major drivers of uncertainty are considered in funding decisions.

Background and objective: China has the highest number of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in the world. However, it is unclear what levels of screening and treatment are needed to achieve the WHO 2030 hepatitis C elimination targets. We aimed to evaluate the impact of scaling up interventions on the hepatitis C epidemic and determine how and at what cost these elimination targets could be achieved for the whole population in China.

Methods: We developed a compartmental model incorporating HCV transmission, disease progression, and care cascade for the whole population in China, calibrated with data on demographics, injecting drug use, HCV prevalence, and treatments. Five different scenarios were evaluated for effects and costs for 2022-2030. All costs were converted to 2021 US dollar (USD) and discounted at an annual rate of 5%. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Under the status quo scenario, the incidence of hepatitis C is projected to increase from 60.39 (57.60-63.45) per 100,000 person-years in 2022 to 68.72 (65.3-73.97) per 100,000 person-years in 2030, and 2.52 million (1.94-3.07 million) infected patients are projected to die between 2022 and 2030, of which 0.76 (0.61-1.08) million will die due to hepatitis C. By increasing primary screening to 10%, conducting regular rescreening (annually for PWID and every 5 years for the general population) and treating 90% of patients diagnosed, the incidence would be reduced by 88.15% (86.61-89.45%) and hepatitis C-related mortality by 60.5% (52.62-65.54%) by 2030, compared with 2015 levels. This strategy would cost USD 52.78 (USD 43.93-58.53) billion.

Conclusions: Without changes in HCV prevention and control policy, the disease burden of HCV in China will increase dramatically. To achieve the hepatitis C elimination targets, China needs to sufficiently scale up screening and treatment.

Introduction: Immunocompromised host pneumonia (ICHP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, yet usual care (UC) diagnostic tests often fail to identify an infectious etiology. A US-based, multicenter study (PICKUP) among ICHP patients with hematological malignancies, including hematological cell transplant recipients, showed that plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing provided significant additive diagnostic value.

Aim: The objective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding mcfDNA sequencing to UC diagnostic testing for hospitalized ICHP patients.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was utilized from the US third-party payer's perspective such that only direct costs were included, using a lifetime time horizon with discount rates of 3% for costs and benefits. Three comparators were considered: (1) All UC, which included non-invasive (NI) and invasive testing and early bronchoscopy; (2) All UC & mcfDNA; and (3) NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch (later bronchoscopy if the initial tests are negative). The model considered whether a probable causative infectious etiology was identified and if the patient received appropriate antimicrobial treatment through expert adjudication, and if the patient died in-hospital. The primary endpoints were total costs, life-years (LYs), equal value life-years (evLYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Extensive scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

Results: At a price of $2000 (2023 USD) for the plasma mcfDNA, All UC & mcfDNA was more costly ($165,247 vs $153,642) but more effective (13.39 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 10.20 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 10.11 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, giving a cost/QALY of $16,761. NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch was also more costly ($162,655 vs $153,642) and more effective (13.19 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, with a cost/QALY of $16,729. The PSA showed that above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, All UC & mcfDNA was the preferred scenario on cost-effectiveness grounds (as it provides the most QALYs gained). Further scenario analyses found that All UC & mcfDNA always improved patient outcomes but was not cost saving, even when the price of mcfDNA was set to $0.

Conclusions: Based on the evidence available at the time of this analysis, this CEA suggests that mcfDNA may be cost-effective when added to All UC, as well as in a scenario using conditional bronchoscopy when NI testing fails to identify a probable infectious etiology for ICHP. Adding mcfDNA testing to UC diagnostic testing should allow more patients to receive appropriate therapy earlier and improve patient outcomes.