scholarly journals Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Jordan E. Anderson ◽  
Ari D. Panzer ◽  
Elle F. Pope ◽  
Brittany N. D'Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
English Language ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Cost

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting “under-studied” conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and “over-studied” conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

scholarly journals Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Jordan E. Anderson ◽  
Ari D. Panzer ◽  
Elle F. Pope ◽  
Brittany N. D'Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
English Language ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Publication Rates ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Study Characteristics

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and  Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also analysed the number of CEAs versus disease burden estimates for major diseases and conditions across three geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth in publication rates for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies were most likely to examine pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found discrepancies in the number of published CEAs for certain diseases and conditions in certain regions, suggesting “under-studied” areas (e.g., cardiovascular disease in Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania and “overstudied” areas (e.g., HIV in Sub Saharan Africa) relative to disease burden in those regions. Conclusions: The number of cost-per QALY and cost-per-DALY analyses has grown rapidly with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  Discrepancies between the number of published studies and disease burden suggest funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Operating on Traumatic Spinal Injuries in Low-Middle Income Countries: A Preliminary Report From a Major East African Referral Center

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822094488
Author(s):  
Noah L. Lessing ◽  
Scott L. Zuckerman ◽  
Albert Lazaro ◽  
Ashley A. Leech ◽  
Andreas Leidinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Operative Treatment ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Spine Trauma ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries ◽  
The Cost

Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Objectives: While the incidence of traumatic spine injury (TSI) is high in low-middle income countries (LMICs), surgery is rarely possible due to cost-prohibitive implants. The objective of this study was to conduct a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of operative treatment of TSI patients in a LMIC setting. Methods: At a tertiary hospital in Tanzania from September 2016 to May 2019, a retrospective analysis was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment of TSI. Operative treatment included decompression/stabilization. Nonoperative treatment meant 3 months of bed rest. Direct costs included imaging, operating fees, surgical implants, and length of stay. Four patient scenarios were chosen to represent the heterogeneity of spine trauma: Quadriplegic, paraplegic, neurologic improvement, and neurologically intact. Disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to determine the cost per unit benefit of operative versus nonoperative treatment. Cost/DALY averted was the primary outcome (i.e., the amount of money required to avoid losing 1 year of healthy life). Results: A total of 270 TSI patients were included (125 operative; 145 nonoperative). Operative treatment averaged $731/patient. Nonoperative care averaged $212/patient. Comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment, the incremental cost/DALY averted for each patient outcome was: quadriplegic ($112-$158/DALY averted), paraplegic ($47-$67/DALY averted), neurologic improvement ($50-$71/DALY averted), neurologically intact ($41-$58/DALY averted). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings without major differences. Conclusions: This preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the upfront costs of spine trauma surgery may be offset by a reduction in disability. LMIC governments should consider conducting more spine trauma cost-effectiveness analyses and including spine trauma surgery in universal health care.

A Bibliometric Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the Economic and Medical Literature: 1976-2006

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Greenberg ◽  
Allison B. Rosen ◽  
Oren Wacht ◽  
Jennifer Palmer ◽  
Peter J. Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Journal Title ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Prolific Authors

Background. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) presenting a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratio is frequently used to determine ‘‘value for money’’ in health care. Despite the proliferation of CEA research, there has been no detailed study focusing on the bibliometric properties of this literature. Objectives. To describe and analyze trends in publications and coauthorship in the CEA literature from 1976 to 2006 and to identify the most prolific authors and research groups conducting CEAs. Methods. The authors used the Tufts Medical Center Registry of original CEAs published through 2006 (www.cearegistry.org). For each article, they recorded the year of publication, the journal title, and the number of contributing authors and their names. Authors were assigned credit based on their weighted contribution to the study (1 credit point for the first and last authors, ½ point for the second author, and 1=n credit points for all other authors, where n reflects the number of coauthors). Results. Approximately 1400 CEAs presenting a cost/QALY ratio were published in 420 journals through 2006. The mean number of contributing authors was 4.7 ± 2.4. Medical journals were characterized by a higher number of coauthors, as compared with the economic and health policy journals: 4.8 ± 2.4 v. 4.2 ± 2.0, P < 0.001. The lowest average number of coauthors was in Medical Decision Making (3.6) and the highest in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (8.2). The most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard and Tufts Universities and their affiliated hospitals. The authors identified 4 major research groups that contributed substantially to the field of cost-effectiveness analysis but did not find any substantial academic relationships across these groups. Conclusions. The CEA literature continues to proliferate. Coauthorship trends appear to follow the rapid increase in the mean number of authors found in other publication types.

scholarly journals Sequencing Systemic Therapy Pathways for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 549-562
Author(s):  
Christopher Sherrow ◽  
Kristopher Attwood ◽  
Kehua Zhou ◽  
Sarbajit Mukherjee ◽  
Renuka Iyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer worldwide and carries a poor prognosis. Historically, sorafenib was the only available systemic treatment for advanced HCC. However, in recent years, 6 new treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. Data are lacking regarding the most appropriate sequencing pathway for these agents. Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment pathways for HCC reflecting all new drug approvals, and then use our data to provide guidance for clinicians on which pathway is the most cost-effective. Materials and Methods: Markov models were used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 8 different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment sequences. The model allowed for 9 possible states. Cost effectiveness ratios (CER) and incremental CER (ICER) were calculated to compare costs between different pathways and against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Efficacy and toxicity data were extracted from the landmark trials for each agent. All agents except ramucirumab were included. The cost of each agent was based on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) in USD as of June 2019. Monte-Carlo methods were used to simulate the experience of 1,000,000 patients per treatment sequence for a 12-month period. Results: The pathway with the lowest CER was sorafenib, followed by pembrolizumab (USD 227,741.03/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). ICER analysis supported implementing 2nd-line pembrolizumab-based pathways at a higher WTP threshold of 300,000/quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis did not substantially change these results. Conclusions: The most cost-effective strategy was 1st-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy followed by 2nd-line immunotherapy. All pathways exceeded a commonly accepted WTP of USD 100–150,000/QALY. Our preliminary results warrant further studies to best inform real-world practices.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document