Pub Date : 2025-12-01Epub Date: 2025-09-27DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01534-8
Xiaoyu Zhang, Jiaru Liu, Zhengwei Wang, James Galloway, Sam Norton, Sumeet Singla, Huajie Jin
Background and objective: Inflammatory arthritis is a common condition treated in rheumatology clinics, contributing significantly to healthcare costs and societal burden. Understanding the economic impact of inflammatory arthritis requires a comprehensive analysis through cost-of-illness studies. This systematic review aims to gather up-to-date cost-of-illness data on inflammatory arthritis from various countries, identify the primary cost drivers, describe shifts in cost components and appraise the quality of cost-of-illness study reporting in this field.
Methods: An electronic search was performed across four databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Health Management Information Consortium, to identify cost-of-illness studies on inflammatory arthritis published over the past two decades. The primary outcome was the annual cost per patient with inflammatory arthritis, categorised by cost components. All costs were standardised to 2024 US dollar values. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Larg and Moss checklist and the modified Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
Results: From an initial 12,264 publications, 82 studies were included in this review, covering axial spondyloarthritis (n = 49), psoriatic arthritis (n = 30), reactive arthritis (n = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 13; 2019 onwards) and seronegative/seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n = 8). Annual total societal costs varied considerably across inflammatory arthritis subtypes and countries. Medication expenditures consistently emerged as the primary direct healthcare cost driver, while productivity losses due to morbidity constituted the major component of indirect costs. Carer productivity loss represented a substantial proportion of indirect costs (up to 60.9%), yet was infrequently reported. Over time, we observed an increasing proportion of medication-related costs and a decreasing proportion of productivity losses for axial spondyloarthritis, alongside a reduction in inpatient care costs for psoriatic arthritis. These evolving cost distributions mirror patterns previously reported in rheumatoid arthritis. Methodological gaps were evident, with most studies lacking sensitivity analyses and comprehensive cost perspectives.
Conclusions: A substantial economic impact of inflammatory arthritis across different regions and subtypes was identified. This review emphasises the importance of including comprehensive cost components to fully assess the economic burden of inflammatory arthritis and provides methodological recommendations for future studies.
{"title":"The Economic Burden of Inflammatory Arthritis: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Xiaoyu Zhang, Jiaru Liu, Zhengwei Wang, James Galloway, Sam Norton, Sumeet Singla, Huajie Jin","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01534-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01534-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Inflammatory arthritis is a common condition treated in rheumatology clinics, contributing significantly to healthcare costs and societal burden. Understanding the economic impact of inflammatory arthritis requires a comprehensive analysis through cost-of-illness studies. This systematic review aims to gather up-to-date cost-of-illness data on inflammatory arthritis from various countries, identify the primary cost drivers, describe shifts in cost components and appraise the quality of cost-of-illness study reporting in this field.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search was performed across four databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Health Management Information Consortium, to identify cost-of-illness studies on inflammatory arthritis published over the past two decades. The primary outcome was the annual cost per patient with inflammatory arthritis, categorised by cost components. All costs were standardised to 2024 US dollar values. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Larg and Moss checklist and the modified Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From an initial 12,264 publications, 82 studies were included in this review, covering axial spondyloarthritis (n = 49), psoriatic arthritis (n = 30), reactive arthritis (n = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 13; 2019 onwards) and seronegative/seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (n = 8). Annual total societal costs varied considerably across inflammatory arthritis subtypes and countries. Medication expenditures consistently emerged as the primary direct healthcare cost driver, while productivity losses due to morbidity constituted the major component of indirect costs. Carer productivity loss represented a substantial proportion of indirect costs (up to 60.9%), yet was infrequently reported. Over time, we observed an increasing proportion of medication-related costs and a decreasing proportion of productivity losses for axial spondyloarthritis, alongside a reduction in inpatient care costs for psoriatic arthritis. These evolving cost distributions mirror patterns previously reported in rheumatoid arthritis. Methodological gaps were evident, with most studies lacking sensitivity analyses and comprehensive cost perspectives.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A substantial economic impact of inflammatory arthritis across different regions and subtypes was identified. This review emphasises the importance of including comprehensive cost components to fully assess the economic burden of inflammatory arthritis and provides methodological recommendations for future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1389-1403"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145176612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-28DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01560-6
Ziyi Lin, Andrew Briggs
This illustration uses the Scottish Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model as a case study to provide a comprehensive, step-by-step guide to building a discrete event simulation (DES) model in R. It is specifically designed for practitioners who are familiar with constructing Markov models in R and wish to transition their theoretical knowledge of DES into practical implementation. The Scottish CVD Policy Model was originally developed as an Excel-based Markov model with a sophisticated structure: a primary Markov model for first events and nested sub-Markov models for subsequent events. Later replicated in R by Xin, Yiqiao et al., the model's source code was made publicly available on GitHub, underscoring its potential as a teaching tool. The intricate structure of this model presents several challenges in health economic modeling, making it an ideal candidate for demonstrating how DES techniques can address such complexities effectively. In this illustration, we deliberately avoid using R packages developed specifically for DES to enhance transparency. Instead, we rely on base R functions, and the tidyverse package for tidy data wrangling. This approach ensures that every step of the DES implementation is clear and reproducible. In addition to covering fundamental topics such as how to simulate a time to event according to an assumed distribution, and continuous discounting, the illustration also provides solutions to more advanced modeling challenges, such as handling piecewise-modeled cost and utility. By discussing both general principles and complex scenarios, this paper equips readers with the practical tools needed to transition from Markov to DES frameworks, enhancing the accuracy and flexibility of health economic evaluations.
{"title":"Beyond the States: Developing a Discrete Event Simulation Model Using R.","authors":"Ziyi Lin, Andrew Briggs","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01560-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01560-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This illustration uses the Scottish Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model as a case study to provide a comprehensive, step-by-step guide to building a discrete event simulation (DES) model in R. It is specifically designed for practitioners who are familiar with constructing Markov models in R and wish to transition their theoretical knowledge of DES into practical implementation. The Scottish CVD Policy Model was originally developed as an Excel-based Markov model with a sophisticated structure: a primary Markov model for first events and nested sub-Markov models for subsequent events. Later replicated in R by Xin, Yiqiao et al., the model's source code was made publicly available on GitHub, underscoring its potential as a teaching tool. The intricate structure of this model presents several challenges in health economic modeling, making it an ideal candidate for demonstrating how DES techniques can address such complexities effectively. In this illustration, we deliberately avoid using R packages developed specifically for DES to enhance transparency. Instead, we rely on base R functions, and the tidyverse package for tidy data wrangling. This approach ensures that every step of the DES implementation is clear and reproducible. In addition to covering fundamental topics such as how to simulate a time to event according to an assumed distribution, and continuous discounting, the illustration also provides solutions to more advanced modeling challenges, such as handling piecewise-modeled cost and utility. By discussing both general principles and complex scenarios, this paper equips readers with the practical tools needed to transition from Markov to DES frameworks, enhancing the accuracy and flexibility of health economic evaluations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145637170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-27DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01563-3
Tyler D Wagner, Jacqlyn W Riposo, Kendra M Gould, Jonathan D Campbell, James T Kenney, Claire M Csenge, Theresa Schmidt
<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Over the last decade, payers in the USA have been exploring novel financing mechanisms for gene therapies (GTs). Our research objective was to assess the landscape of innovative contracts (ICs) between payers and manufacturers for GTs and identify barriers and opportunities for future contract development and implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a multi-method approach including a targeted literature review and interviews. We developed a framework defining 'innovative contracts' as agreements using real-world outcomes that link to the total price paid for gene therapy, encompassing value-based pricing, outcome-based payments, and performance-based models between payers and manufacturers. We searched for published information about implementation of ICs for GTs in PubMed and government, industry, and research institutions from January 2014 to January 2025. We excluded any insights specific to ICs for non-GTs as well as those relevant to ex-US markets. We supplemented these findings with bibliographic searches. Semi-structured interviews with payers, manufacturers, and other diverse representatives from the GT financing ecosystem were conducted to validate and enrich the literature findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PubMed search yielded ten studies relevant to implementation of ICs. Gray literature included over 50 publications referencing active contracts, policy solutions, payer budget impact, and state Medicaid programs' innovative GT contracting. Information on manufacturer and payer contracts was publicly available for 10 of 14 gene therapies (71%). Of 16 identified GT contracts, eight used upfront payments with milestone-based rebates, two used performance-based installment payments, one offered upfront payment with a rebate or payment over 5 years, and five do not have publicly available details on the type of financial arrangement. Interviews (N = 15) suggested that barriers to ICs include a lack of mutual trust between payers and manufacturers, lack of data conveying the return on investment for innovative contracts, lack of a sufficient incentive for stakeholders to engage in contracting, perceived regulatory limitations (e.g., implications of Medicaid Best Price), and patient portability challenges. Some interviewees believed that ICs should be the standard for GTs, while others stated that ICs should only be pursued when they are expected to have a significant impact on timely patient access in the early launch period when payers are considering limited or no coverage. Interviewees indicated that policy changes may encourage future contracting negotiation and implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Widespread uptake of ICs will require a multi-stakeholder collaboration to overcome common barriers, as a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient for diverse stakeholder needs. Establishing industry-wide contracting principles and practices may help br
{"title":"Innovative Contracting for Gene Therapies: Current Landscape and Perspectives on the Future of Gene Therapy Financing in the USA.","authors":"Tyler D Wagner, Jacqlyn W Riposo, Kendra M Gould, Jonathan D Campbell, James T Kenney, Claire M Csenge, Theresa Schmidt","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01563-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01563-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Over the last decade, payers in the USA have been exploring novel financing mechanisms for gene therapies (GTs). Our research objective was to assess the landscape of innovative contracts (ICs) between payers and manufacturers for GTs and identify barriers and opportunities for future contract development and implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a multi-method approach including a targeted literature review and interviews. We developed a framework defining 'innovative contracts' as agreements using real-world outcomes that link to the total price paid for gene therapy, encompassing value-based pricing, outcome-based payments, and performance-based models between payers and manufacturers. We searched for published information about implementation of ICs for GTs in PubMed and government, industry, and research institutions from January 2014 to January 2025. We excluded any insights specific to ICs for non-GTs as well as those relevant to ex-US markets. We supplemented these findings with bibliographic searches. Semi-structured interviews with payers, manufacturers, and other diverse representatives from the GT financing ecosystem were conducted to validate and enrich the literature findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PubMed search yielded ten studies relevant to implementation of ICs. Gray literature included over 50 publications referencing active contracts, policy solutions, payer budget impact, and state Medicaid programs' innovative GT contracting. Information on manufacturer and payer contracts was publicly available for 10 of 14 gene therapies (71%). Of 16 identified GT contracts, eight used upfront payments with milestone-based rebates, two used performance-based installment payments, one offered upfront payment with a rebate or payment over 5 years, and five do not have publicly available details on the type of financial arrangement. Interviews (N = 15) suggested that barriers to ICs include a lack of mutual trust between payers and manufacturers, lack of data conveying the return on investment for innovative contracts, lack of a sufficient incentive for stakeholders to engage in contracting, perceived regulatory limitations (e.g., implications of Medicaid Best Price), and patient portability challenges. Some interviewees believed that ICs should be the standard for GTs, while others stated that ICs should only be pursued when they are expected to have a significant impact on timely patient access in the early launch period when payers are considering limited or no coverage. Interviewees indicated that policy changes may encourage future contracting negotiation and implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Widespread uptake of ICs will require a multi-stakeholder collaboration to overcome common barriers, as a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient for diverse stakeholder needs. Establishing industry-wide contracting principles and practices may help br","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145637199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-10DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01562-4
Niklaus Meier, Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez, Mark Pletscher, Matthias Schwenkglenks
Background and objective: In cost-effectiveness analysis, treatment decisions are analysed at the population level. Combinations of treatment strategies that account for the heterogeneity of costs and effects across patients can be more cost-effective than a "one size fits all" approach. Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) assign a specific treatment to every patient based on their relevant characteristics, such that overall cost-effectiveness is optimized, but do not include feasibility or ethical considerations. We propose an approach for the design of ITRs based on simulated patient data from microsimulation models using statistical learning techniques.
Methods: We mathematically define the optimal ITR and how to measure the value of an ITR in a cost-effectiveness context. We explore least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, classification trees, and policy trees to illustrate how standard statistical learning techniques can be used to derive ITRs. We compare the strengths and limitations of these three approaches in terms of three criteria: the incremental value of the ITRs compared to optimal treatment assignment in terms of net monetary benefit (NMB), computational speed, and the interpretability of the ITRs. We propose methods to describe the impact of parameter uncertainty on the ITRs. We also explore how stochastic uncertainty can impact the ITR incremental value. We illustrate the methods by applying them to a microsimulation model for haemophilia B comparing four treatment strategies as a case study. The relevant patient characteristics in this model are the annualized bleeding rate, age, and sex.
Results: In our case study, a simple two-layer-deep classification tree is best suited based on the three criteria. This classification tree allocates treatments depending on whether the annualized bleeding rate of a patient is above or below 30 and whether their age is above or below 51. The optimal threshold values are uncertain based on the 95% credible ranges from the probabilistic analysis: 21-46 for annualized bleeding rate and 42-56 for age. Scenarios show that stochastic uncertainty has an impact on the incremental value of the ITR.
Discussion: Based on methodological considerations and the empirical findings in our case study, we expect the superiority of classification trees for the derivation of ITRs to be generalizable to other microsimulation models. This finding needs to be confirmed in future applications. Stochastic uncertainty has significant impacts on the ITRs, such that accurate representations of individual patient pathways are particularly crucial when designing ITRs. Future research could explore further empirical models and analytical approaches for ITRs or consider the translation of ITRs into the real-world decision-making context.
{"title":"Individualized Treatment Rules Based on Cost-Effectiveness Criteria in Microsimulations.","authors":"Niklaus Meier, Ana Cecilia Quiroga Gutierrez, Mark Pletscher, Matthias Schwenkglenks","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01562-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01562-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>In cost-effectiveness analysis, treatment decisions are analysed at the population level. Combinations of treatment strategies that account for the heterogeneity of costs and effects across patients can be more cost-effective than a \"one size fits all\" approach. Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) assign a specific treatment to every patient based on their relevant characteristics, such that overall cost-effectiveness is optimized, but do not include feasibility or ethical considerations. We propose an approach for the design of ITRs based on simulated patient data from microsimulation models using statistical learning techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We mathematically define the optimal ITR and how to measure the value of an ITR in a cost-effectiveness context. We explore least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, classification trees, and policy trees to illustrate how standard statistical learning techniques can be used to derive ITRs. We compare the strengths and limitations of these three approaches in terms of three criteria: the incremental value of the ITRs compared to optimal treatment assignment in terms of net monetary benefit (NMB), computational speed, and the interpretability of the ITRs. We propose methods to describe the impact of parameter uncertainty on the ITRs. We also explore how stochastic uncertainty can impact the ITR incremental value. We illustrate the methods by applying them to a microsimulation model for haemophilia B comparing four treatment strategies as a case study. The relevant patient characteristics in this model are the annualized bleeding rate, age, and sex.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our case study, a simple two-layer-deep classification tree is best suited based on the three criteria. This classification tree allocates treatments depending on whether the annualized bleeding rate of a patient is above or below 30 and whether their age is above or below 51. The optimal threshold values are uncertain based on the 95% credible ranges from the probabilistic analysis: 21-46 for annualized bleeding rate and 42-56 for age. Scenarios show that stochastic uncertainty has an impact on the incremental value of the ITR.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Based on methodological considerations and the empirical findings in our case study, we expect the superiority of classification trees for the derivation of ITRs to be generalizable to other microsimulation models. This finding needs to be confirmed in future applications. Stochastic uncertainty has significant impacts on the ITRs, such that accurate representations of individual patient pathways are particularly crucial when designing ITRs. Future research could explore further empirical models and analytical approaches for ITRs or consider the translation of ITRs into the real-world decision-making context.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145482632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-09-08DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01537-5
Zanfina Ademi, Sheridan E Rodda, Karl Vivoda, Susan Hennessy, Olive Fenton, James S Ware
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to the health and economic burden of disease globally. In this paper we discuss the literature on the health economics of the prevention and early intervention in CVD. We reveal the large economic impact of CVD and provide the economic argument supporting the calls for early detection and diagnosis of CVD outlined in the Global Heart Hub's patient-led Manifesto for Change. Many challenges in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for CVD prevention are identified, as well as the emerging statistical and economic methods to help overcome these issues. Lastly, we acknowledge the profound disparities in cardiovascular health faced by minority or underserved populations, and the important role that prevention and early intervention can play in improving health equity.
{"title":"Highlights from the Manifesto on the Health Economics of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.","authors":"Zanfina Ademi, Sheridan E Rodda, Karl Vivoda, Susan Hennessy, Olive Fenton, James S Ware","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01537-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01537-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to the health and economic burden of disease globally. In this paper we discuss the literature on the health economics of the prevention and early intervention in CVD. We reveal the large economic impact of CVD and provide the economic argument supporting the calls for early detection and diagnosis of CVD outlined in the Global Heart Hub's patient-led Manifesto for Change. Many challenges in conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for CVD prevention are identified, as well as the emerging statistical and economic methods to help overcome these issues. Lastly, we acknowledge the profound disparities in cardiovascular health faced by minority or underserved populations, and the important role that prevention and early intervention can play in improving health equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1281-1292"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12534329/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145023980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-08-19DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01530-y
Shitong Xie, Tianxin Pan, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goni, Brendan Mulhern, Zhihao Yang, Richard Norman, Nancy Devlin, Feng Xie
Objective: We aimed to compare EQ-5D-Y-5L health state preferences among children, adolescents, and adults in Canada using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), and to explore the feasibility of a rescaling latent DCE using anchoring tasks collected from adolescents.
Methods: An online survey was conducted to elicit preferences for EQ-5D-Y-5L health states from children (aged 12-15 years), adolescents (aged 16-17 years), and adults (aged ≥ 18 years). All respondents completed 12 latent DCE tasks. Adults and adolescents were randomly assigned to three additional anchoring tasks using a DCE with duration or with dead. The tasks were framed from the perspective of a 10-year-old child for adults and their own perspective for children and adolescents. Respondents provided feedback on the difficulty of latent DCE tasks. Mixed logit models were used to analyze latent DCE data. Anchored DCE models using duration/dead tasks were estimated and compared between adults and adolescents.
Results: Overall, 546 children, 508 adolescents, and 908 adults were included in the analyses. A higher proportion of children indicated it easy to complete DCE tasks compared with adolescents and adults. Monotonicity of coefficients were observed in latent DCE models among adults but not among children and adolescents. Anchored DCE modeling performed better in adults than in adolescents regarding monotonicity and statistical significance of coefficients, and the DCE with duration performed slightly better than the DCE with dead.
Conclusions: There were differences in health state preferences elicited using DCEs between children/adolescents and adults. Anchoring tasks appeared feasible for adolescents, with a DCE with duration performing slightly better than a DCE with dead.
{"title":"Eliciting and Anchoring Health State Preferences Using Discrete Choice Experiments Among Adults, Adolescents, and Children.","authors":"Shitong Xie, Tianxin Pan, Juan Manuel Ramos-Goni, Brendan Mulhern, Zhihao Yang, Richard Norman, Nancy Devlin, Feng Xie","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01530-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01530-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to compare EQ-5D-Y-5L health state preferences among children, adolescents, and adults in Canada using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), and to explore the feasibility of a rescaling latent DCE using anchoring tasks collected from adolescents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey was conducted to elicit preferences for EQ-5D-Y-5L health states from children (aged 12-15 years), adolescents (aged 16-17 years), and adults (aged ≥ 18 years). All respondents completed 12 latent DCE tasks. Adults and adolescents were randomly assigned to three additional anchoring tasks using a DCE with duration or with dead. The tasks were framed from the perspective of a 10-year-old child for adults and their own perspective for children and adolescents. Respondents provided feedback on the difficulty of latent DCE tasks. Mixed logit models were used to analyze latent DCE data. Anchored DCE models using duration/dead tasks were estimated and compared between adults and adolescents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 546 children, 508 adolescents, and 908 adults were included in the analyses. A higher proportion of children indicated it easy to complete DCE tasks compared with adolescents and adults. Monotonicity of coefficients were observed in latent DCE models among adults but not among children and adolescents. Anchored DCE modeling performed better in adults than in adolescents regarding monotonicity and statistical significance of coefficients, and the DCE with duration performed slightly better than the DCE with dead.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were differences in health state preferences elicited using DCEs between children/adolescents and adults. Anchoring tasks appeared feasible for adolescents, with a DCE with duration performing slightly better than a DCE with dead.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1353-1366"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144874460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-08-07DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01529-5
Sam Harper, Daniela Afonso, Karina Watts, Brett Doble, Oskar Eklund, Sachin Vadgama, Julia Thornton Snider, Stephen Palmer, Matthew Taylor
Background and objective: Health technology assessment (HTA) of haemato-oncology therapies typically requires extrapolation of long-term survival beyond a trial's follow-up. Health technology assessment agencies must balance caution around uncertainty in early follow-up trial data whilst aiming to provide timely access. This study qualitatively and quantitatively assessed how eight HTA agencies considered maturing data and external evidence.
Methods: The eight HTA appraisals were based on ZUMA-7, a phase III trial for axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for second-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ZUMA-7 survival data were submitted with either a 25-month ('Interim') or 47-month ('Primary') follow-up. To inform axi-cel Interim survival extrapolations, external evidence was available from a prior mature single-arm trial for third-line or later diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1). A qualitative assessment of eight different submissions to HTA agencies was undertaken to determine key discussion points. The value and cost of waiting for evidence to mature between Interim and Primary analyses were quantified using value of information methods to evaluate the impact of waiting for further evidence collection on population health.
Results: Agencies used varied approaches to account for uncertainty in survival extrapolations in both Interim and Primary analyses. No agency considered external evidence fully during Interim submissions; one used it partially to inform clinical plausibility; four did not consider it. Health technology assessment agencies that did not consider the relevance of ZUMA-1 were more inclined to wait for more mature evidence to mitigate uncertainty. When ZUMA-1 aided in determining a plausible range for Interim extrapolations, the less valuable more mature evidence became, with the cost of waiting for Primary analysis results exceeding the value conferred.
Conclusions: There was limited consideration of external evidence during the included HTA submissions. In the future, it is recommended that external evidence should be considered to a greater degree by both manufacturers and HTA agencies when extrapolating survival to ensure appropriate and timely HTA decisions that minimise the undue burden on healthcare systems.
{"title":"Evaluating the Role and Policy Implications of Using External Evidence in Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Therapy for Second-Line DLBCL.","authors":"Sam Harper, Daniela Afonso, Karina Watts, Brett Doble, Oskar Eklund, Sachin Vadgama, Julia Thornton Snider, Stephen Palmer, Matthew Taylor","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01529-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01529-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) of haemato-oncology therapies typically requires extrapolation of long-term survival beyond a trial's follow-up. Health technology assessment agencies must balance caution around uncertainty in early follow-up trial data whilst aiming to provide timely access. This study qualitatively and quantitatively assessed how eight HTA agencies considered maturing data and external evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The eight HTA appraisals were based on ZUMA-7, a phase III trial for axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for second-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ZUMA-7 survival data were submitted with either a 25-month ('Interim') or 47-month ('Primary') follow-up. To inform axi-cel Interim survival extrapolations, external evidence was available from a prior mature single-arm trial for third-line or later diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (ZUMA-1). A qualitative assessment of eight different submissions to HTA agencies was undertaken to determine key discussion points. The value and cost of waiting for evidence to mature between Interim and Primary analyses were quantified using value of information methods to evaluate the impact of waiting for further evidence collection on population health.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agencies used varied approaches to account for uncertainty in survival extrapolations in both Interim and Primary analyses. No agency considered external evidence fully during Interim submissions; one used it partially to inform clinical plausibility; four did not consider it. Health technology assessment agencies that did not consider the relevance of ZUMA-1 were more inclined to wait for more mature evidence to mitigate uncertainty. When ZUMA-1 aided in determining a plausible range for Interim extrapolations, the less valuable more mature evidence became, with the cost of waiting for Primary analysis results exceeding the value conferred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was limited consideration of external evidence during the included HTA submissions. In the future, it is recommended that external evidence should be considered to a greater degree by both manufacturers and HTA agencies when extrapolating survival to ensure appropriate and timely HTA decisions that minimise the undue burden on healthcare systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1293-1307"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12534297/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144799867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-08-12DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01511-1
Xiaoxiao Ling, Andrea Gabrio, Gianluca Baio
Background: Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires the specification of prior distributions for all parameters to be empirically estimated via Bayes' rule. When costs are modelled via Log-Normal distributions, Uniform prior distributions are commonly applied on the logarithm-scale standard deviations for costs due to the ease of implementation. However, the consequences of placing wide Uniform priors on standard deviations of log costs for the interpretation of original-scale CEA results remain unclear. The purpose of our study is to explore the impact of using Uniform priors for the standard deviations of cost data on CEA conclusions when costs are assumed to be log-normally distributed.
Methods: The analysis has been performed using individual-level cost-utility data from a randomised controlled trial. Costs are initially jointly modelled with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using Log-Normal and Beta distributions, respectively. Uniform prior distributions with different upper bounds are applied to log-scale standard deviations in the cost Log-Normal model. We compare the performance of Uniform priors under the Log-Normal distribution with other distributional assumptions for costs. A simulation study has then been conducted to explore the impact of these models and prior choices on cost estimates in CEAs.
Results: Results show that the choice of Uniform priors on standard deviations of log costs in a Log-Normal model can substantially induce large fluctuations in cost estimates, and thus potentially affect the final estimates of the intervention being cost-effective compared with other distributional assumptions. This is potentially driven by the occurrence of zero values in cost data.
Conclusion: Bayesian CEAs may be sensitive to the choice of upper bounds of the Uniform priors for the standard deviations of log costs in Log-Normal models, particularly when data contain zero values. Our results suggest that caution should be taken when Uniform distributions with large upper bounds are used.
{"title":"Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Individual-Level Data is Sensitive to the Choice of Uniform Priors on the Standard Deviations for Costs in Log-Normal Models.","authors":"Xiaoxiao Ling, Andrea Gabrio, Gianluca Baio","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01511-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01511-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) requires the specification of prior distributions for all parameters to be empirically estimated via Bayes' rule. When costs are modelled via Log-Normal distributions, Uniform prior distributions are commonly applied on the logarithm-scale standard deviations for costs due to the ease of implementation. However, the consequences of placing wide Uniform priors on standard deviations of log costs for the interpretation of original-scale CEA results remain unclear. The purpose of our study is to explore the impact of using Uniform priors for the standard deviations of cost data on CEA conclusions when costs are assumed to be log-normally distributed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis has been performed using individual-level cost-utility data from a randomised controlled trial. Costs are initially jointly modelled with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using Log-Normal and Beta distributions, respectively. Uniform prior distributions with different upper bounds are applied to log-scale standard deviations in the cost Log-Normal model. We compare the performance of Uniform priors under the Log-Normal distribution with other distributional assumptions for costs. A simulation study has then been conducted to explore the impact of these models and prior choices on cost estimates in CEAs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results show that the choice of Uniform priors on standard deviations of log costs in a Log-Normal model can substantially induce large fluctuations in cost estimates, and thus potentially affect the final estimates of the intervention being cost-effective compared with other distributional assumptions. This is potentially driven by the occurrence of zero values in cost data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bayesian CEAs may be sensitive to the choice of upper bounds of the Uniform priors for the standard deviations of log costs in Log-Normal models, particularly when data contain zero values. Our results suggest that caution should be taken when Uniform distributions with large upper bounds are used.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1309-1321"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12534244/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144822235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-11-01Epub Date: 2025-08-18DOI: 10.1007/s40273-025-01532-w
Christopher G Fawsitt, Elaine Gallagher, Alka Singh, Hannah Baker, Edward Kayongo, Howard Thom, Noman Paracha
Background and objectives: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) imposes a significant economic burden and necessitates more cost-effective treatment strategies. The variability among the components of published economic evaluation models leads to methodological inconsistencies, underscoring the need for an optimal framework to minimise unwarranted structural variation. This paper reviews existing economic evaluations, establishes a comprehensive framework and aims to support future economic evaluations and decision-making in mCSPC.
Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify relevant economic evaluations in mCSPC. Health technology assessments (HTAs) by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Canada's Drug Agency were reviewed to gather insights on critiques and limitations. On the basis of these findings, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness modelling framework was established. Furthermore, two additional SLRs were conducted to identify cost and resource utilisation inputs, as well as health state utility scores derived from published studies and HTA assessments.
Results: Markov models and partitioned survival models (PSMs) were commonly reported in literature and published HTA evaluations. Despite the strong precedence of PSMs, we propose an optimal framework for mCSPC utilising a semi-Markov structure. This approach offers increased flexibility, allowing transition rates from progressed states to depend on time since progression occurred. We also present key sources of cost and utility data identified in the SLR.
Discussion: This work aligns with methodologies recommended by the Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) PIONEER external group and published studies. The optimal framework, including healthcare resource utilisation and utility data, consolidates existing modelling precedents in mCSPC and will assist the cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments for this condition.
{"title":"Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Insights from a Systematic Review.","authors":"Christopher G Fawsitt, Elaine Gallagher, Alka Singh, Hannah Baker, Edward Kayongo, Howard Thom, Noman Paracha","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01532-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s40273-025-01532-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) imposes a significant economic burden and necessitates more cost-effective treatment strategies. The variability among the components of published economic evaluation models leads to methodological inconsistencies, underscoring the need for an optimal framework to minimise unwarranted structural variation. This paper reviews existing economic evaluations, establishes a comprehensive framework and aims to support future economic evaluations and decision-making in mCSPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify relevant economic evaluations in mCSPC. Health technology assessments (HTAs) by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Canada's Drug Agency were reviewed to gather insights on critiques and limitations. On the basis of these findings, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness modelling framework was established. Furthermore, two additional SLRs were conducted to identify cost and resource utilisation inputs, as well as health state utility scores derived from published studies and HTA assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Markov models and partitioned survival models (PSMs) were commonly reported in literature and published HTA evaluations. Despite the strong precedence of PSMs, we propose an optimal framework for mCSPC utilising a semi-Markov structure. This approach offers increased flexibility, allowing transition rates from progressed states to depend on time since progression occurred. We also present key sources of cost and utility data identified in the SLR.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This work aligns with methodologies recommended by the Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) PIONEER external group and published studies. The optimal framework, including healthcare resource utilisation and utility data, consolidates existing modelling precedents in mCSPC and will assist the cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments for this condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1323-1338"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12534270/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144874459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}