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:
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.
INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common respiratory virus, particularly affecting children, and can cause respiratory infections such as croup and bronchiolitis. The latter is a leading cause of paediatric hospitalisation within the UK. Children <3 years of age and/or with underlying health conditions are more vulnerable to severe RSV infection. There are currently limited data on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed RSV, particularly within primary care settings and outside the typical 'RSV season', which in the Northern hemisphere tends to coincide with winter months. There is also a lack of data on the health economic impact of RSV infection on families and healthcare systems. This observational surveillance study aims to collect data on the incidence of laboratory-confirmed RSV-attributable respiratory tract infection (RTI) in children aged <3 years presenting to primary, secondary or tertiary care; it also aims to estimate the health economic and quality of life impact of RSV-attributable infection in this cohort. Such data will contribute to informing public health strategies to prevent RSV-associated infection, including use of preventative medications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Parents/carers of children <3 years of age with RTI symptoms will consent for a respiratory sample (nasal swab) to be taken. Laboratory PCR testing will assess for the presence of RSV and/or other pathogens. Data will be obtained from medical records on demographics, comorbidities, severity of infection and hospitalisation outcomes. Parents will complete questionnaires on the impact of ongoing infection symptoms at day 14 and 28 following enrolment. The primary outcome is incidence of laboratory-confirmed RSV in children <3 years presenting to primary, secondary or tertiary care with RTI symptoms leading to health-seeking behaviours. Recruitment will be carried out from December 2021 to March 2023, encompassing two UK winter seasons and intervening months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted (21/WS/0142), and study findings will be published as per International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' guidelines.
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) in two indications from a Spanish perspective. Firstly, as pre-emptive treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding (indication 1) compared with endoscopic band ligation plus drug therapy. Secondly, to treat refractory ascites (indication 2) compared with large volume paracentesis.
METHODS: A two-state (alive and dead) Markov model was developed to capture the costs and health impact for the two indications over a 2-year time horizon with monthly cycles. In the alive state, patients could experience adverse event(s), associated with costs and disutility, such as recurrent variceal bleeding, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Discount rates of 3% for utilities and costs and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY were applied.
RESULTS: In the base case analysis, TIPSS was estimated to be cost-effective as a pre-emptive treatment for indication 1 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €230 and 0.211, respectively). TIPSS also remained cost-effective (€16,819/QALY) in a conservative scenario analysis, conducted with an alternate source for clinical parameters. The key drivers of the outcomes were survival for the comparator arm, mean band ligation outpatient procedures, and TIPSS treatment costs. TIPSS was estimated to dominate the comparator for indication 2 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €25,687 and 0.531, respectively). The key drivers of the outcomes were monthly paracentesis sessions and cost per inpatient stay for those undergoing paracentesis.
CONCLUSIONS: TIPSS is likely to be a cost-effective and a cost-saving treatment in patients with cirrhosis in indications 1 and 2, compared with standard treatments. The analyses estimate clinical benefits along with reduced healthcare costs from avoided downstream resource consumption.
AIMS: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common, chronic gastrointestinal condition characterized by heartburn, chest pain, regurgitation, and bloating. The current standard of care includes chronic treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or, in selected patients, laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery. RefluxStop is a novel implantable device indicated for GERD patients eligible for laparoscopic surgical treatment. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop against available treatment options for GERD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of RefluxStop compared with PPI-based medical management (MM) and two surgical management options, LNF and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA, LINX system), in people with GERD. Clinical outcomes and costs were estimated over a lifetime horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective and an annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied.
RESULTS: RefluxStop showed favorable surgical outcomes compared with both LNF and MSA. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with MM, LNF, and MSA were £4,156, £6,517, and £249 per QALY gained, respectively. At the UK cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability that RefluxStop was cost-effective against MM, LNF, and MSA was 100%, 93%, and 100%, respectively.
LIMITATIONS: The model presented the results of a comparison, with evidence for RefluxStop derived from its single-arm CE mark trial and that for comparators from the literature. The varied clinical care pathway of individual GERD patients was necessarily simplified for modeling purposes, and necessary assumptions were made; however, the model results proved robust to sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: Introduction of RefluxStop was estimated to extend life expectancy and improve quality-of-life of GERD patients when compared with MM, LNF, and MSA. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that RefluxStop is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment option within NHS England.
