Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and drug-eluting beads chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) for patients with unresectable early- to intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
DESIGN: A cohort-based Markov model with a five-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the three embolization treatments. Upon entering the model, patients with HCC received either TARE or one of the two other embolization treatments. Patients remained in a "watch and wait" state for tumor downstaging that allowed them to move to health states such as liver transplant, resection, systemic therapies, or cure. Clinical input parameters were retrieved from the published literature, and where values could not be sourced, assumptions were made and validated by clinical experts. Health benefits were quantified using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost input parameters were obtained from various sources, including the Medicare Cost Report, IBM® Micromedex RED BOOK, and published literature.
RESULTS: At five years, TARE was found to be cost-saving (saving $15,779 per person compared to cTACE) and produced 0.33 more QALYs per person than cTACE. TARE cost $13,696 more but produced 0.33 more QALYs than DEE-TACE, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $41,474 per QALY gained at five years. After accounting for parameter uncertainty, the likelihood of TARE being cost-effective was at least 90% against all comparators at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: TARE produces more QALYs than cTACE and DEE-TACE, with a high probability of being cost-effective against both comparators.
AIMS: Use of an absorbable antibacterial envelope during implantation prevents cardiac implantable electronic device infections in patients with a moderate-to-high infection risk. Previous studies demonstrated that an envelope is cost-effective in high-risk patients within German, Italian, and English healthcare systems, but these analyses were based on limited data and may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings.
METHODS AND RESULTS:
A previously published decision-tree-based cost-effectiveness model was used to compare the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope for infection prevention compared to standard-of-care intravenous antibiotics. The model was adapted using data from a Danish observational two-centre cohort study that investigated infection-risk patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reoperations with and without an antibacterial envelope (n = 1943). We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of €34 125/QALY gained, based on the upper threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (£30 000). An antibacterial envelope was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12 022 per QALY in patients undergoing CRT reoperations, thus indicating that the envelope is cost-effective when compared with standard of care. A separate analysis stratified by device type showed ICERS of €6227 (CRT defibrillator) and €29 177 (CRT pacemaker) per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness ratios were favourable for patients undergoing CRT reoperations in the Danish healthcare system, and thus are in line with previous studies. Results from this study can contribute to making the technology available to Danish patients and align preventive efforts in the pacemaker and ICD area.
PURPOSE: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, and ultimately fatal lung disease that, while rare, has seen incidence rise over time. There is no cure for IPF other than a lung transplant, though two antifibrotic (AF) drugs do exist to slow disease progression. While these drugs are efficacious, they are both associated with differing profiles of adverse events. This study aimed to elicit patient, caregiver and pulmonologist preferences on the treatment profiles of AFs via a discrete choice experiment (DCE).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The DCE and associated survey were distributed across 7 European countries, and bespoke DCEs were developed for patients/caregivers and pulmonologists. After collaboration with European Pulmonary Fibrosis & Related Disorders Federation (EU-PFF) and expert pulmonologists, respectively, a patient/caregiver DCE with 5 attributes and a pulmonologist DCE with 6 attributes were finalized. The DCEs had a blocked approach to reduce participant burden and were distributed on an online survey platform. Preferences were estimated through conditional multinomial logit regression analysis.
RESULTS: Ninety-five patients, 22 caregivers and 115 pulmonologists fully completed their respective DCEs. Overall, patients and caregivers preferred management of treatment-related adverse events over both survival benefits and disease progression. Nearly all preference levels were found to be significantly different from their reference level. In contrast, pulmonologists showed a greater preference for control of lung function and exacerbations over adverse events. Although there were relative differences between the univariate subgroups in terms of the preference weights, most of these were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The outcomes from this study suggest that while patients and caregivers had similar preferences for characteristics of IPF treatments, pulmonologists did not share those same preferences. Patients and caregivers preferred safety, while pulmonologists preferred efficacy. These differences should be considered by clinicians to better involve the patient in treatment decision-making for IPF.
Evidence reviews are important for informing decision-making and primary research, but they can be time-consuming and costly. With the advent of artificial intelligence, including machine learning, there is an opportunity to accelerate the review process at many stages, with study screening identified as a prime candidate for assistance. Despite the availability of a large number of tools promising to assist with study screening, these are not consistently used in practice and there is skepticism about their application. Single-arm evaluations suggest the potential for tools to reduce screening burden. However, their integration into practice may need further investigation through evaluations of outcomes such as overall resource use and impact on review findings and recommendations. Because the literature lacks comparative studies, it is not currently possible to determine their relative accuracy. In this commentary, we outline the published research and discuss options for incorporating tools into the review workflow, considering the needs and requirements of different types of review.
No abstract available.
BACKGROUND: An economic model was developed with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'Managing Common Infections' (MCI) Committee to evaluate the cost effectiveness of different antibiotic treatment sequences for treating Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in England.
METHODS: The model consisted of a 90-day decision tree followed by a lifetime cohort Markov model. Efficacy data were taken from a network meta-analysis and published literature, while cost, utility and mortality data were taken from published literature. A treatment sequence was defined as a first-line intervention or a different second-line intervention, and used constant third- and fourth-line interventions. The possible first- and second-line interventions were vancomycin, metronidazole, teicoplanin and fidaxomicin (standard and extended regimens). Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated and were used to run a fully incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Threshold analysis was conducted around pricing.
RESULTS: Sequences including teicoplanin, fidaxomicin (extended regimen) and second-line metronidazole were excluded based on recommendations from the committee. The final pairwise comparison was between first-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin (VAN-FID), and the reverse (FID-VAN). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for FID-VAN compared with VAN-FID was £156,000 per QALY gained, and FID-VAN had a 0.2% likelihood of being cost effective at a £20,000 threshold.
CONCLUSION: First-line vancomycin and second-line fidaxomicin was the most cost-effective treatment sequence at the NICE threshold for treating CDI in England. The main limitation of this study was that the initial cure and recurrence rates of each intervention were applied constantly across each line of treatment and each round of recurrence.
INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disease that causes shortness of breath, dry cough, and tiredness. While there is no cure for IPF, current therapeutic treatments aim to slow lung degeneration while managing side effects. There is little known about patient experience and attitude with regards to their disease and medication.
PURPOSE: To understand the perceptions, behaviors and drivers of treatment decision-making among patients, caregivers and pulmonologists in IPF.
Patients and Methods: Online surveys to patients with IPF, caregivers and pulmonologists were developed and administered in Belgium, Finland, France, Greece (pulmonologists only), the Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom between November 2021 and January 2022.
RESULTS: A total of 111 patients, 22 caregivers and 140 pulmonologists participated. Half (47%) of patients rated their disease as "severe", while pulmonologists reported that a quarter of their patients had a low Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) (below 50% of the predicted value). Between 21% and 42% of the patients do not take an IPF medication (patients' perception) or antifibrotic (physicians' perception). Pulmonologists reported that a total of 58% of their patients were receiving antifibrotic medication, any IPF medication, while around 53%, 55%, 35% and 73% of the patients limited their exposure (sometimes or often) to the sun due to IPF, considered taking medication against diarrhea, nausea/vomiting and heartburn, respectively. Treatment adherence was relatively high (81%), in line with the caregivers' view and the pulmonologists' expectations. Overall, cultural, clinical or socio-demographic factors impacted patients' perceptions or behaviors.
CONCLUSION: This study shows there is a significant proportion of IPF patients who remain untreated, a misalignment of disease severity between patients and their physicians and patient background impacts behavior. Overall, more in-depth patient-physician communication is needed to improve treatment experience.
