PharmacoEconomics最新文献

We are developing an economic model to explore multiple topics in Australian youth mental health policy. To help make that model more readily transferable to other jurisdictions, we developed a software framework for authoring modular computational health economic models (CHEMs) (the software files that implement health economic models). We specified framework user requirements for: a simple programming syntax; a template CHEM module; tools for authoring new CHEM modules; search tools for finding existing CHEM modules; tools for supplying CHEM modules with data; reproducible analysis and reporting tools; and tools to help maintain a CHEM project website. We implemented the framework as six development version code libraries in the programming language R that integrate with online services for software development and research data archiving. We used the framework to author five development version R libraries of CHEM modules focussed on utility mapping in youth mental health. These modules provide tools for variable validation, dataset description, multi-attribute instrument scoring, construction of mapping models, reporting of mapping studies and making out of sample predictions. We assessed these CHEM module libraries as mostly meeting transparency, reusability and updatability criteria that we have previously developed, but requiring more detailed documentation and unit testing of individual modules. Our software framework has potential value as a prototype for future tools to support the development of transferable CHEMs.Code: Visit https://www.ready4-dev.com for more information about how to find, install and apply the prototype software framework.

Background: Productivity losses are often included in costing studies and economic evaluations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the economic burden of disease. Global guidance on estimating productivity losses is sparse, especially for low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) where informal and unpaid work remains dominant. This study aims to describe current practices for valuing productivity losses in LMICs.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies published before April 2022 using three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection. We included any costing or economic evaluation study conducted in a LMIC that provided methodological details on how the monetary value for productivity losses was estimated. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of the studies.

Results: A total of 281 articles were included. While most studies did not specify the overall approach used to measure and value productivity losses (58%), the human capital approach was the most frequently used approach to measure productivity losses when this was clearly stated (39%). The most common methods to estimate a monetary value for productivity losses were market wages (51%), self-reported wages (28%) and macroeconomic measures (15%).

Conclusion: Reporting standards for productivity losses in LMIC settings have room for improvement. While market wages were the most frequently used method to estimate the monetary value of productivity losses, this relies on context-specific data availability. Until a consensus is reached on if, when and how to include productivity losses in costing and economic evaluation studies, future studies could include a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different methods for estimating the monetary value of productivity losses.

Introduction: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK.

Methods: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis.

Results: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians.

Conclusion: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Background: Maternal-perinatal interventions delivered during pregnancy or childbirth have unique characteristics that impact the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the mother, fetus, and newborn child. However, maternal-perinatal cost-utility analyses (CUAs) often only consider either maternal or child health outcomes. Challenges include, but are not limited to, measuring fetal, newborn, and infant health outcomes, and assessing their impact on maternal HRQoL. It is also important to recognize the impact of maternal-perinatal health on family members' HRQoL (i.e., family spillover effects) and to incorporate these effects in maternal-perinatal CUAs.

Objective: The aim was to systematically review the methods used to include health outcomes of pregnant women, fetuses, and children and to incorporate family spillover effects in maternal-perinatal CUAs.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane Collection, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and the Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) databases from inception to 2020 to identify maternal-perinatal CUAs that included health outcomes for pregnant women, fetuses, and/or children. The search was updated to December 2022 using PEDE. Data describing how the health outcomes of mothers, fetuses, and children were measured, incorporated, and reported along with the data on family spillover effects were extracted.

Results: Out of 174 maternal-perinatal CUAs identified, 62 considered the health outcomes of pregnant women, and children. Among the 54 quality-adjusted life year (QALY)-based CUAs, 12 included fetal health outcomes, the impact of fetal loss on mothers' HRQoL, and the impact of neonatal demise on mothers' HRQoL. Four studies considered fetal health outcomes and the effects of fetal loss on mothers' HRQoL. One study included fetal health outcomes and the impact of neonatal demise on maternal HRQoL. Furthermore, six studies considered the impact of neonatal demise on maternal HRQoL, while four included fetal health outcomes. One study included the impact of fetal loss on maternal HRQoL. The remaining 26 only included the health outcomes of pregnant women and children. Among the eight disability-adjusted life year (DALY)-based CUAs, two measured fetal health outcomes. Out of 174 studies, only one study included family spillover effects. The most common measurement approach was to measure the health outcomes of pregnant women and children separately. Various approaches were used to assess fetal losses in terms of QALYs or DALYs and their impact on HRQoL of mothers. The most common integration approach was to sum the QALYs or DALYs for pregnant women and children. Most studies reported combined QALYs and incremental QALYs, or DALYs and incremental DALYs,

Background: Considerable progress has been made in defining and measuring the real option value (ROV) of medical technologies. However, questions remain on how to estimate (1) ROV outside of life-extending oncology interventions; (2) the impact of ROV on costs and cost effectiveness; and (3) potential interactions between ROV and other elements of value.

Methods: We developed a 'minimal modeling' approach for estimating the size of ROV that does not require constructing a full, formal cost-effectiveness model. We proposed a qualitative approach to assessing the level of uncertainty in the ROV estimate. We examined the potential impact of ROV on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as well as on the potential interactions between ROV and other elements of value. Lastly, we developed and presented a 15-item checklist for reporting ROV in value assessment.

Results: The minimal modeling approach uses estimates on the efficacy of current treatment and potential future innovation, as well as success rate and length of new treatment development, and can be applied to all types of ROV across disease areas. ROV may interact with the conventional value, value of hope, productivity effects, and insurance value. The impact of ROV on cost effectiveness can be evaluated via threshold analysis.

Conclusion: The minimal modeling approach and the checklist developed in this paper simplifies and standardizes the estimation and reporting of ROV in value assessment. Systematically including and reporting ROV in value assessment will minimize bias and improve transparency, which will help improve the credibility of ROV research and acceptance by stakeholders.

Background: Evaluating healthcare interventions for their impacts beyond health outcomes may result in recognition of changes in human capital, income level, tax revenue, and government spending, which could affect economic growth and population health. In this paper, we document instances where current health technology assessment (HTA) practices fail to account for the impacts of healthcare interventions on broader society beyond the healthcare sector.

Methods: We propose a novel conceptual framework, highlighting its three components (distributional cost-effectiveness analysis [DCEA], input-output model, and voting scheme) and their contributions to capturing the economic and societal ripple effects of healthcare interventions. This manuscript also outlines a case study in which the framework is applied to the reassessment of a previously evaluated digital health therapeutic for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) compared with standard of care, demonstrating its practical application.

Results: The DCEA health value metric indicates that digital therapeutic is more equitable, favoring socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, while standard of care exacerbates health inequality by benefiting the already advantaged. Additionally, digital therapeutic shows potential for boosting productivity, raising income, and creating jobs, supporting its consideration by employer-sponsored health plans to optimize resource allocation for treating OUD.

Conclusion: The conceptual framework provides insights for enhancing HTAs to incorporate the broader economic and societal impacts of healthcare interventions. By integrating DCEA, extended HTA analysis with input-output modeling, and a voting scheme, decision makers can make informed choices aligned with societal priorities, although further research and validation are necessary for practical implementation across diverse healthcare contexts.

Background: Skin cancer's rising incidence demands understanding of its economic impact. The current understanding is fragmented because of the various methodological approaches applied in skin cancer cost-of-illness studies.

Objective: This study systematically reviews melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma cost-of-illness studies to provide an overview of the applied methodological approaches and to identify the main cost drivers.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted adhering to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from December 2022 until December 2023 using a search strategy with entry terms related to the concepts of skin cancer and cost of illness. The records were screened on the basis of the title and abstract and subsequently on full text against predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles published before 2012 were excluded. A nine-item checklist adapted for cost-of-illness studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the articles.

Results: This review included a total of 45 studies, together evaluating more than half a million patients. The majority of the studies (n = 36) focused on melanoma skin cancer, a few (n = 3) focused on keratinocyte carcinomas, and 6 studies examined both. Direct costs were estimated in all studies, while indirect costs were only estimated in nine studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies, mainly owing to disparities in study population, methodological approaches, included cost categories, and differences in healthcare systems. In melanoma skin cancer, both direct and indirect costs increased with progressing tumor stage. In advanced stage melanoma, systemic therapy emerged as the main cost driver. In contrast, for keratinocyte carcinoma no obvious cost drivers were identified.

Conclusions: A homogeneous skin cancer cost-of-illness study design would be beneficial to enhance between-studies comparability, identification of cost drivers, and support evidence-based decision-making for skin cancer.

Researchers incorporate health state utility values as inputs to inform economic models. However, for a particular health state or condition, multiple utility values derived from different studies typically exist and a single study is often insufficient to represent the best available source of utility needed to inform policy decisions. The purpose of this paper is to provide an introductory guidance for conducting Bayesian meta-analysis of health state utility values to generate a single parameter input for economic evaluation, using R. The tutorial is illustrated using data from a systematic review of health state utilities of patients with heart failure, with 21 studies that reported utilities measured using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Explanations, key considerations and suggested readings are provided for each step of the tutorial, adhering to a clear workflow for conducting Bayesian meta-analysis: (1) setting-up the data; (2) employing methods to impute missing standard deviations; (3) defining the priors; (4) fitting the model; (5) diagnosing model convergence; (6) interpreting the results; and (7) performing sensitivity analyses. The posterior distributions for the pooled effect size (i.e. mean health state utility) and between-study heterogeneity are discussed and interpreted in light of the data, priors and models used. We hope that this tutorial will foster interest in Bayesian methods and their applications in the meta-analysis of utilities.