Surgical stabilisation of the spine compared with a programme of intensive rehabilitation for the management of patients with chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether, from a health provider and patient perspective, surgical stabilisation of the spine is cost effective when compared with an intensive programme of rehabilitation in patients with chronic low back pain.Design Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Setting Secondary care.Participants 349 patients randomised to surgery (n = 176) or to an intensive rehabilitation programme (n = 173) from 15 centres across the United Kingdom between June 1996 and February 2002.Main outcome measures Costs related to back pain and incurred by the NHS and patients up to 24 months after randomisation. Return to paid employment and total hours worked. Patient utility as estimated by using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire at several time points and used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost per QALY.Results At two years, 38 patients randomised to rehabilitation had received rehabilitation and surgery whereas just seven surgery patients had received both treatments. The mean total cost per patient was estimated to be £7830 (SD £5202) in the surgery group and £4526 (SD £4155) in the intensive rehabilitation arm, a significant difference of £3304 (95% confidence interval £2317 to £4291). Mean QALYs over the trial period were 1.004 (SD 0.405) in the surgery group and 0.936 (SD 0.431) in the intensive rehabilitation group, giving a non-significant difference of 0.068 (–0.020 to 0.156). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was estimated to be £48 588 per QALY gained (–£279 883 to £372 406).Conclusion Two year follow-up data show that surgical stabilisation of the spine may not be a cost effective use of scarce healthcare resources. However, sensitivity analyses show that this could change—for example, if the proportion of rehabilitation patients requiring subsequent surgery continues to increase.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sofosbuvir Compared to Current Standard Treatment in Swiss Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C

In clinical trials, sofosbuvir showed high antiviral activity in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) across all genotypes. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based treatment compared to current standard treatment in mono-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotypes 1–4 in Switzerland. Cost-effectiveness was modelled from the perspective of the Swiss health care system using a lifetime Markov model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used an endpoint of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatment characteristics, quality of life, and transition probabilities were obtained from published literature. Country-specific model inputs such as patient characteristics, mortality and costs were obtained from Swiss sources. We performed extensive sensitivity analyses. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% (range: 0–5%) per year. Sofosbuvir-containing treatment in mixed cohorts of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with CHC genotypes 1–4 showed ICERs between CHF 10,337 and CHF 91,570 per QALY gained. In subgroup analyses, sofosbuvir dominated telaprevir- and boceprevir-containing treatment in treatment-naïve genotype 1 cirrhotic patients. ICERs of sofosbuvir were above CHF 100,000 per QALY in treatment-naïve, interferon eligible, non-cirrhotic patients infected with genotypes 2 or 3. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, results were generally robust. From a Swiss health care system perspective, treatment of mixed cohorts of cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients with CHC genotypes 1–4 with sofosbuvir-containing treatment versus standard treatment would be cost-effective if a threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY was assumed.     

Cost utility analysis of sildenafil compared with papaverine-phentolamine injections

ObjectiveTo compare the cost effectiveness of sildenafil and papaverine-phentolamine injections for treating erectile dysfunction.DesignCost utility analysis comparing treatment with sildenafil (allowing a switch to injection therapy) and treatment with papaverine-phentolamine (no switch allowed). Costs and effects were estimated from the societal perspective. Using time trade-off, a sample of the general public (n=169) valued health states relating to erectile dysfunction. These values were used to estimated health related quality of life by converting the clinical outcomes of a trial into quality adjusted life years (QALYs).Participants169 residents of Rotterdam.ResultsParticipants thought that erectile dysfunction limits quality of life considerably: the mean utility gain attributable to sildenafil is 0.11. Overall, treatment with sildenafil gained more QALYs, but the total costs were higher. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the introduction of sildenafil was £3639 in the first year and fell in following years. Doubling the frequency of use of sildenafil almost doubled the cost per additional QALY.ConclusionsTreatment with sildenafil is cost effective. When considering funding sildenafil, healthcare systems should take into account that the frequency of use affects cost effectiveness.     

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture,Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial

Background

New evidence on the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture plus usual care (acupuncture) and counselling plus usual care (counselling) for patients with depression suggests the need to investigate the health-related quality of life and costs of these treatments to understand whether they should be considered a good use of limited health resources.

Methods and Findings

The cost-effectiveness analyses are based on the Acupuncture, Counselling or Usual care for Depression (ACUDep) trial results. Statistical analyses demonstrate a difference in mean quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and suggest differences in mean costs which are mainly due to the price of the interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis is used to express decision uncertainty. Acupuncture and counselling are found to have higher mean QALYs and costs than usual care. In the base case analysis acupuncture has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4,560 per additional QALY and is cost-effective with a probability of 0.62 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Counselling compared with acupuncture is more effective and more costly with an ICER of £71,757 and a probability of being cost-effective of 0.36. A scenario analysis of counselling versus usual care, excluding acupuncture as a comparator, results in an ICER of £7,935 and a probability of 0.91.

Conclusions

Acupuncture is cost-effective compared with counselling or usual care alone, although the ranking of counselling and acupuncture depends on the relative cost of delivering these interventions. For patients in whom acupuncture is unavailable or perhaps inappropriate, counselling has an ICER less than most cost-effectiveness thresholds. However, further research is needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment pathways for depressed patients when the full range of available interventions is considered.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of intensive versus conventional follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer

Objective To determine the cost effectiveness of intensive follow up compared with conventional follow up in patients with colorectal cancer.Design Incremental cost effectiveness analysis recognising differences in follow up strategies, based on effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of five randomised trials.Setting United Kingdom.Main outcome measures Taking a health service perspective, estimated incremental costs effectiveness ratios for each life year gained for five trials and four trials designed for early detection of extramural recurrences (targeted surveillance).Results Based on five year follow up, the numbers of life years gained by intensive follow up were 0.73 for the five trial model and 0.82 for the four trial model. For the five trials, the adjusted net (extra) cost for each patient was £2479 (€3550; $4288) and for each life year gained was £3402, substantially lower than the current threshold of NHS cost acceptability (£30 000). The corresponding values for the four trial model were £2529 and £3077, suggesting that targeted surveillance is more cost effective. The main predictor of incremental cost effectiveness ratios was surveillance costs rather than treatment costs. Judged against the NHS threshold of cost acceptability, the predicted incremental cost threshold was ninefold and the effectiveness threshold was 3%.Conclusions Based on the available data and current costs, intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer is economically justified and should be normal practice. There is a continuing need to evaluate the efficacy of specific surveillance tools: this study forms the basis for economic evaluations in such trials.     

Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of four disease modifying treatments (interferon betas and glatiramer acetate) for relapsing remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom.DesignModelling cost effectiveness.SettingUK NHS.ParticipantsPatients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.ResultsThe base case cost per quality adjusted life year gained by using any of the four treatments ranged from £42 000 ($66 469; €61 630) to £98 000 based on efficacy information in the public domain. Uncertainty analysis suggests that the probability of any of these treatments having a cost effectiveness better than £20 000 at 20 years is below 20%. The key determinants of cost effectiveness were the time horizon, the progression of patients after stopping treatment, differential discount rates, and the price of the treatments.ConclusionsCost effectiveness varied markedly between the interventions. Uncertainty around point estimates was substantial. This uncertainty could be reduced by conducting research on the true magnitude of the effect of these drugs, the progression of patients after stopping treatment, the costs of care, and the quality of life of the patients. Price was the key modifiable determinant of the cost effectiveness of these treatments.

What is already known on this topic

Interferon beta and glatiramer acetate are the only disease modifying therapies used to treat multiple sclerosisEconomic evaluations of these drugs have had flaws in the specification of the course of the disease, efficacy, duration of treatment, mortality, and the analysis of uncertaintyNone of the existing estimates of cost effectiveness can be viewed as robust

What this study adds

The cost per quality adjusted life year gained is unlikely to be less than £40 000 for interferon beta or glatiramer acetateExperience after stopping treatment is a key determinant of the cost effectiveness of these therapiesKey factors affecting point estimates of cost effectiveness are the cost of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate, the effect of these therapies on disease progression, and the time horizon evaluated     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity: A mendelian randomisation study

BackgroundThe prevalence of obesity has increased in the United Kingdom, and reliably measuring the impact on quality of life and the total healthcare cost from obesity is key to informing the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target obesity, and determining healthcare funding. Current methods for estimating cost-effectiveness of interventions for obesity may be subject to confounding and reverse causation. The aim of this study is to apply a new approach using mendelian randomisation for estimating the cost-effectiveness of interventions that target body mass index (BMI), which may be less affected by confounding and reverse causation than previous approaches.Methods and findingsWe estimated health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and both primary and secondary healthcare costs for 310,913 men and women of white British ancestry aged between 39 and 72 years in UK Biobank between recruitment (2006 to 2010) and 31 March 2017. We then estimated the causal effect of differences in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs using mendelian randomisation. For this, we used instrumental variable regression with a polygenic risk score (PRS) for BMI, derived using a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of BMI, with age, sex, recruitment centre, and 40 genetic principal components as covariables to estimate the effect of a unit increase in BMI on QALYs and total healthcare costs. Finally, we used simulations to estimate the likely effect on BMI of policy relevant interventions for BMI, then used the mendelian randomisation estimates to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.A unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by 0.65% of a QALY (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49% to 0.81%) per year and increased annual total healthcare costs by £42.23 (95% CI: £32.95 to £51.51) per person. When considering only health conditions usually considered in previous cost-effectiveness modelling studies (cancer, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes), we estimated that a unit increase in BMI decreased QALYs by only 0.16% of a QALY (95% CI: 0.10% to 0.22%) per year.We estimated that both laparoscopic bariatric surgery among individuals with BMI greater than 35 kg/m², and restricting volume promotions for high fat, salt, and sugar products, would increase QALYs and decrease total healthcare costs, with net monetary benefits (at £20,000 per QALY) of £13,936 (95% CI: £8,112 to £20,658) per person over 20 years, and £546 million (95% CI: £435 million to £671 million) in total per year, respectively.The main limitations of this approach are that mendelian randomisation relies on assumptions that cannot be proven, including the absence of directional pleiotropy, and that genotypes are independent of confounders.ConclusionsMendelian randomisation can be used to estimate the impact of interventions on quality of life and healthcare costs. We observed that the effect of increasing BMI on health-related quality of life is much larger when accounting for 240 chronic health conditions, compared with only a limited selection. This means that previous cost-effectiveness studies have likely underestimated the effect of BMI on quality of life and, therefore, the potential cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce BMI.

Sean Harrison and colleagues use Mendelian randomization techniques to estimate the cost effectiveness of interventions targeting body mass index.     

Endpiece: A newspaper

ObjectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.DesignPrimary analysis: four year cost effectiveness analysis based directly on results from a randomised controlled trial in which patients were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (intervention) or to a control group not offered screening. Secondary analysis: projection of the data, based on conservative assumptions, to indicate likely cost effectiveness at 10 years.SettingFour centres in the United Kingdom. Screening delivered in primary care settings with follow up and surgery offered in the main hospitalsParticipantsPopulation based sample of 67 800 men aged 65-74 years.ResultsOver four years there were 47 fewer deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysms in the screening group than in the control group, but the additional costs incurred were £2.2m. After adjustment for censoring and discounted at 6% the mean additional cost of the screening programme was £63.39 ($97.77, €100.48) (95% confidence interval £53.31 to £73.48) per patient. The hazard ratio for abdominal aortic aneurysm was 0.58 (0.42 to 0.78). Over four years the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio for screening was £28 400 (£15 000 to £146 000) per life year gained, equivalent to about £36 000 per quality adjusted life year. After 10 years this figure is estimated to fall to around £8000 per life year gained.ConclusionsEven at four years the cost effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is at the margin of acceptability according to current NHS thresholds. Over a longer period the cost effectiveness will improve substantially, the predicted ratio at 10 years falling to around a quarter of the four year figure.

What is already known on this topic

Small trials have suggested that an ultrasound screening programme to detect abdominal aortic aneurysms in older men may be effectiveThere is uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of routine screening, with widely varying estimates

What this study adds

A cost effectiveness analysis of data from a large randomised trial with follow up over four years showed 47 fewer deaths and additional costs of £2.2m in the group invited to screeningThe adjusted net cost per patient was £63.39 and per life year gained was £28 400The projected cost per life year gained after 10 years was £8000, which is substantially lower than the perceived NHS threshold value     

Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether the faster recovery after early surgery for sciatica compared with prolonged conservative care is attained at reasonable costs.Design Cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.Setting Nine Dutch hospitals.Participants 283 patients with sciatica for 6-12 weeks, caused by lumbar disc herniation.Interventions Six months of prolonged conservative care compared with early surgery.Main outcome measures Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year and societal costs, estimated from patient reported utilities (UK and US EuroQol, SF-6D, and visual analogue scale) and diaries on costs (healthcare, patient’s costs, and productivity).Results Compared with prolonged conservative care, early surgery provided faster recovery, with a gain in QALYs according to the UK EuroQol of 0.044 (95% confidence interval 0.005 to 0.083), the US EuroQol of 0.032 (0.005 to 0.059), the SF-6D of 0.024 (0.003 to 0.046), and the visual analogue scale of 0.032 (−0.003 to 0.066). From the healthcare perspective, early surgery resulted in higher costs (difference €1819 (£1449; $2832), 95% confidence interval €842 to €2790), with a cost utility ratio per QALY of €41 000 (€14 000 to €430 000). From the societal perspective, savings on productivity costs led to a negligible total difference in cost (€−12, €−4029 to €4006).Conclusions Faster recovery from sciatica makes early surgery likely to be cost effective compared with prolonged conservative care. The estimated difference in healthcare costs was acceptable and was compensated for by the difference in absenteeism from work. For a willingness to pay of €40 000 or more per QALY, early surgery need not be withheld for economic reasons.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 26872154.     

Cost-utility analysis.

Decisions have to be made about allocating health resources. Currently the best economic evaluation method for doing this is cost-utility analysis. This compares the costs of different procedures with their outcomes measured in "utility based" units--that is, units that relate to a person''s level of wellbeing. The most commonly used unit is the quality adjusted life year (QALY). QALYs are calculated by estimating the total life years gained from a procedure and weighting each year to reflect the quality of life in that year. To compare outcomes of different programmes the Rosser index is one measure that is widely used to assign quality of life scores to patients. Combined with a measure of life years gained from a procedure, this enables QALYs to be calculated and procedures ranked according to cost per QALY gained. In this article Ray Robinson explains the measures used and discusses how QALY league tables can be used to guide decisions on resource allocation.     

The Cost-Effectiveness of Wound-Edge Protection Devices Compared to Standard Care in Reducing Surgical Site Infection after Laparotomy: An Economic Evaluation alongside the ROSSINI Trial

Background

Wound-edge protection devices (WEPDs) have been used in surgery for more than 40 years to reduce surgical site infection (SSI). No economic evaluation of WEPDs against any comparator has ever been conducted. The aim of the paper was to assess whether WEPDs are cost-effective in reducing SSI compared to standard care alone in the United Kingdom.

Methods and Findings

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the ROSSINI trial. The study perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and the time horizon was 30 days post-operatively. The study was conducted in 21 UK hospitals. 760 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to either WEPD or standard care and 735 were included in the primary analysis. The main economic outcome was cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost (£) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients in the WEPD arm accessed health care worth £5,420 on average and gained 0.02131 QALYs, compared to £5,130 and 0.02133 QALYs gained in the standard care arm. The WEPD strategy was more costly and equally effective compared to standard care, but there was significant uncertainty around incremental costs and QALYs. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

There is no evidence to suggest that WEPDs can be considered a cost effective device to reduce SSI. Their continued use is a waste of limited health care resources.     

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Lifestyle Modification versus Metformin Therapy for the Prevention of Diabetes in Singapore

BackgroundIn Singapore, as diabetes is an increasingly important public health issue, the cost-effectiveness of pursuing lifestyle modification programs and/or alternative prevention strategies is of critical importance for policymakers. While the US Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) compared weight loss through lifestyle modification with oral treatment of diabetes drug metformin to prevent/delay the onset of type 2 diabetes in pre-diabetic subjects, no data on either the actual or potential cost effectiveness of such a program is available for East or South-east Asian populations. This study estimates the 3-year cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification and metformin among pre-diabetic subjects from a Singapore health system and societal perspective.MethodologyCost effectiveness was analysed from 2010–2012 using a decision-based model to estimate the rates of getting diabetes, healthcare costs and health-related quality of life. Cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated using costs relevant to the time horizon of the study from Singapore. All costs are expressed in 2012 US dollars.ConclusionBased on adaptation of the DPP data to local conditions, both lifestyle modification and metformin intervention are likely to be cost-effective and worth implementing in Singapore to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. However, the cost of lifestyle modification from the societal perspective would have to be reduced in order to match the cost-effectiveness of metformin intervention.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia

ObjectivesTo assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia.DesignCost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated.ParticipantsSimulated population aged 16-54 years in England and Wales.InterventionsIdentification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients.ResultsTracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (£3097 (€5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of £133 per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (£4914) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (£13 029 per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of £9754 per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (£2777 with a clinical confirmation).ConclusionsScreening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population.

What is already known on this topic

In the United Kingdom there are an estimated 110 000 men and women with familial hypercholesterolaemia, only a small percentage of whom have been identified to dateWithout identification and treatment, over half of these people will have a fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease event by the age of 50 (men) or 60 (women)Effective treatment of high cholesterol concentrations reduces total and coronary heart disease mortalityNo recommended screening strategy currently exists in the United Kingdom for familial hypercholesterolaemia

What this study adds

Computer modelling has shown that the earlier familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed the more cost effective the screening strategy becomesIdentifying relatives of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective screening option for all age groupsAs technology improves and the cost of statins falls all strategies will become more cost effective     

Cost effectiveness analysis of antenatal HIV screening in United Kingdom

ObjectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of universal antenatal HIV screening compared with selective screening in the United Kingdom.DesignIncremental cost effectiveness analysis relating additional costs of screening to life years gained. Maternal and paediatric costs and life years were combined.SettingUnited Kingdom.ResultsOn base case assumptions, a new diagnosis of a pregnant woman with HIV results in a gain of 6.392 life years and additional expenditure of £14 833. If decision makers are prepared to pay up to £10 000 for an additional life year, this would imply a net benefit of £49 090 (range £12 300-£59 000), which would be available to detect each additional infected woman in an antenatal screening programme. In London, universal antenatal screening would be cost effective compared with a selective screening under any reasonable assumptions about screening costs. Outside London, universal screening with uptake above 90% would be cost effective with a £0.60 HIV antibody test cost and up to 3.5 minutes for pretest discussion. Cost effectiveness of universal testing is lower if selective testing can achieve high uptake among those at higher risk. A universal strategy with only 50% uptake may not be less cost effective in low prevalence districts and may cost more and be less effective than a well run selective strategy.ConclusionsUniversal screening with pretest discussion should be adopted throughout the United Kingdom as part of routine antenatal care as long as test costs can be kept low and uptake high.

Key messages

• In 1997 only 13% of undiagnosed HIV infection in pregnant women was picked up on antenatal testing, resulting in many preventable paediatric infections
• Assuming NHS willingness to pay £10 000 per life year gained, universal testing would be much more cost effective than selective testing throughout London on any reasonable assumptions on costs, prevalence, and uptake of testing
• Outside London, universal testing would also be cost effective, even allowing 2-4 minutes for pretest discussion, provided that test costs were no more than £0.60 and uptake exceeded 90%
• Low cost tests could be achieved by pooling antenatal sera or centralisation of testing
• Universal testing with uptake of 50% may be less cost effective than a well run selective programme

     

Economic Evaluation of a General Hospital Unit for Older People with Delirium and Dementia (TEAM Randomised Controlled Trial)

Background

One in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months.

Objective

To examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care.

Methods

Six hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%).

Results

The total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded.

Conclusions

The MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01136148","term_id":"NCT01136148"}}NCT01136148     

Different strategies for screening and prevention of type 2 diabetes in adults: cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To compare four potential screening strategies, and subsequent interventions, for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes: (a) screening for type 2 diabetes to enable early detection and treatment, (b) screening for type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance, intervening with lifestyle interventions in those with a diagnosis of impaired glucose tolerance to delay or prevent diabetes, (c) as for (b) but with pharmacological interventions, and (d) no screening.Design Cost effectiveness analysis based on development and evaluation of probabilistic, comprehensive economic decision analytic model, from screening to death.Setting A hypothetical population, aged 45 at time of screening, with above average risk of diabetes.Data sources Published clinical trials and epidemiological studies retrieved from electronic bibliographic databases; supplementary data obtained from the Department of Health statistics for England and Wales, the screening those at risk (STAR) study, and the Leicester division of the ADDITION study.Methods A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to simulate the long term effects of each screening strategy, in terms of both clinical and cost effectiveness outcomes. The base case model assumed a 50 year time horizon with discounting of both costs and benefits at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate assumptions of the model and to identify which model inputs had most impact on the results.Results Estimated costs for each quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained (discounted at 3.5% a year for both costs and benefits) were £14 150 (€17 560; $27 860) for screening for type 2 diabetes, £6242 for screening for diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance followed by lifestyle interventions, and £7023 for screening for diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance followed by pharmacological interventions, all compared with no screening. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 the probability of the intervention being cost effective was 49%, 93%, and 85% for each of the active screening strategies respectively.Conclusions Screening for type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance, with appropriate intervention for those with impaired glucose tolerance, in an above average risk population aged 45, seems to be cost effective. The cost effectiveness of a policy of screening for diabetes alone, which offered no intervention to those with impaired glucose tolerance, is still uncertain.     

Assessment of the Economic Impact of Belimumab for the Treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in the Italian Setting: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectiveThe purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of belimumab, a new biological treatment specifically developed for the treatment of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), in the Italian setting. SLE is a chronic non-organ specific autoimmune disease characterized by a disregulation of the immune system that involves many organs and systems.MethodsA cost-effectiveness micro-simulation model with a lifetime horizon originally developed for the UK was adapted to the Italian setting. The analysis compared Standard of Care (SoC) alone vs belimumab plus SoC from a National Healthcare Service (NHS) and societal perspective. Health-economic consequences of treatments and organ damage progression were calculated. When available, Italian data were used, otherwise UK costs were converted using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). Utility values were based on the EQ-5D™ assessments in the belimumab clinical trials (BLISS 52 and 76). Results were discounted with 3% for costs and effects. A maximum belimumab treatment duration of 6 years was assumed and wastage costs were considered.ResultsCost per life year gained (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio, ICER) and cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) (Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio, ICUR) were €22,990 and €32,859, respectively. These values reduced to €20,119 and €28,754, respectively, when indirect costs were included.ConclusionsIt may be concluded that in the Italian setting and according to the guidelines of the Italian Association of Health Economics (IAHE), belimumab was shown to be cost-effective, in terms of both ICER and ICUR, (€25–40,000/QALY).     

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care

Objectives To measure the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of providing care in a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care for patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain.Design Cluster randomised controlled trial, with 442 days randomised to the chest pain observation unit or routine care, and cost effectiveness analysis from a health service costing perspective.Setting The emergency department at the Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.Participants 972 patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain (479 attending on days when care was delivered in the chest pain observation unit, 493 on days of routine care) followed up until six months after initial attendance.Main outcome measures The proportion of participants admitted to hospital, the proportion with acute coronary syndrome sent home inappropriately, major adverse cardiac events over six months, health utility, hospital reattendance and readmission, and costs per patient to the health service.Results Use of a chest pain observation unit reduced the proportion of patients admitted from 54% to 37% (difference 17%, odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.001) and the proportion discharged with acute coronary syndrome from 14% to 6% (8%, -7% to 23%, P = 0.264). Rates of cardiac event were unchanged. Care in the chest pain observation unit was associated with improved health utility during follow up (0.0137 quality adjusted life years gained, 95% confidence interval 0.0030 to 0.0254, P = 0.022) and a saving of £78 per patient (-£56 to £210, P = 0.252).Conclusions Care in a chest pain observation unit can improve outcomes and may reduce costs to the health service. It seems to be more effective and more cost effective than routine care.     

Double Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Clinical Outcomes and Real World Healthcare Costs

Double relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (DRMM), MM that is relapsed and/or refractory to bortezomib and lenalidomide, carries a poor prognosis. The healthcare costs of DRMM have not previously been reported. We analyzed detailed medical resource utilization (MRU) costs, drug costs and outcomes for 39 UK patients receiving standard DRMM therapy. Median OS in this cohort was 5.6 months. The mean cost of DRMM treatment plus MRU until death was £23,472 [range: £1,411–£90,262], split between drug costs £11,191 and other resource use costs £12,281. The cost per assumed quality-adjusted life year (QALY) during DRMM was £66,983. These data provide a standard of care comparison when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new drugs in DRMM.     

Coronary heart disease prevention: insights from modelling incremental cost effectiveness

Objective To determine which treatments for preventing coronary heart disease should be offered to which patients by assessing their incremental cost effectiveness.Design Modelling studyData sources Cost estimates (for NHS) and estimates of effectiveness obtained for aspirin, antihypertensive drugs, statins and clopidogrel.Data synthesis Treatment effects were assumed to be independent, and cost per coronary event prevented was calculated for treatments individually and in combination across patients at a range of coronary risks.Results The most cost effective preventive treatments are aspirin, initial antihypertensive treatment (bendrofluazide and atenolol), and intensive antihypertensive treatment (bendrofluazide, atenolol and enalapril), whereas simvastatin and clopidogrel are the least cost effective (cost per coronary event prevented in a patient at 10% coronary risk over five years is £3500 for aspirin, £12 500 for initial antihypertensives, £18 300 for intensive antihypertensives, £60 000 for clopidogrel, and £61 400 for simvastatin). Aspirin in a patient at 5% five year coronary risk costs less than a fifth as much per event prevented (£7900) as simvastatin in a patient at 30% five year risk (£40 800).Discussion A cost effective prevention strategy would offer aspirin and initial antihypertensive treatment to all patients at greater than 7.5% five year coronary risk before offering statins or clopidogrel to patients at greater than 15% five year coronary risk. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of treatments produces robust, practical cost effectiveness rankings that can be used to inform treatment guidelines.