Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle- income countries: Information for reference case development

© 2015 Santatiwongchai et al. Information generated from economic evaluation is increasingly being used to inform health resource allocation decisions globally, including in low- and middle- income countries. However, a crucial consideration for users of the information at a policy level, e.g. funding agencies, is whether the studies are comparable, provide sufficient detail to inform policy decision making, and incorporate inputs from data sources that are reliable and relevant to the context. This review was conducted to inform a methodological standardisation workstream at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and assesses BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY economic evaluations in four programme areas (malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and vaccines) in terms of variation in methodology, use of evidence, and quality of reporting. The findings suggest that there is room for improvement in the three areas of assessment, and support the case for the introduction of a standardised methodology or reference case by the BMGF. The findings are also instructive for all institutions that fund economic evaluations in LMICs and who have a desire to improve the ability of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions

Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?

There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another

Rival perspectives in health technology assessment and other economic evaluations for investing in global and national health. Who decides? Who pays? [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

There seems to be a general agreement amongst practitioners of economic evaluations, including Health Technology Assessment, that the explicit statement of a perspective is a necessary element in designing and reporting research. Moreover, there seems also to be a general presumption that the ideal perspective is “societal”. In this paper we endorse the first principle but dissent from the second. A review of recommended perspectives is presented. The societal perspective is frequently not the one recommended. The societal perspective is shown to be less comprehensive than is commonly supposed, is inappropriate in many contexts and, in any case, is in general not a perspective to be determined independently of the context of a decision problem. Moreover, the selection of a perspective, societal or otherwise, is not the prerogative of analysts

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines.

BACKGROUND: For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs). METHODS: Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used. RESULTS: Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used. CONCLUSION: Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary

Additional file 2: of Identifying priority technical and context-specific issues in improving the conduct, reporting and use of health economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries

Further information of respondents. (DOCX 16 kb

Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle- income countries: Information for reference case development

10.1371/journal.pone.0123853PLoS ONE105e012385

Percentage of BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies adhering to good practices for reporting health economic evaluations adapted from CHEERS statement [13] (n = 20).

<p>Percentage of BMGF-funded cost-per-DALY studies adhering to good practices for reporting health economic evaluations adapted from CHEERS statement [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0123853#pone.0123853.ref013" target="_blank">13</a>] (n = 20).</p

Cetuximab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a model-based economic evaluation in Indonesia setting

Abstract Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, irinotecan and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) compared to standard chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with positive KRAS wild type patients in Indonesia. Methods A cost-utility analysis applying Markov model was constructed, with a societal perspective. Clinical evidence was derived from published clinical trials. Direct medical costs were gathered from hospital billings. Meanwhile, direct non-medical costs, indirect costs, and utility data were collected by directly interviewing patients. We applied 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the model’s uncertainty. Additionally, using payer perspective, budget impact analysis was estimated to project the financial impact of treatment coverage. Results There was no significant difference in life years gained (LYG) between cetuximab plus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI and chemotherapy alone. The incremental QALY was only one month, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was approximately IDR 3 billion/QALY for cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Using 1–3 GDP per capita (IDR 215 million or USD 14,350) as the current threshold, the cetuximab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective. The budget impact analysis resulted that if cetuximab plus chemotherapy remain included in the benefits package under the Indonesian national health insurance (NHI) system, the payer would need more than IDR 1 trillion for five years. Conclusions The combination of cetuximab and chemotherapy for mCRC is unlikely cost-effective and has a substantial financial impact on the system