The cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome based on the RITA 3 trial

The published version of the aritcle can be found at the link below.Background: Evidence suggests that an early interventional strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can improve health outcomes but also increase costs when compared with a conservative strategy.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in different risk groups from a UK health-service perspective.Design: Decision-analytic model based on randomised clinical trial data.Main outcome measures: Costs in UK Sterling at 2003/2004 prices and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) combined into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Methods: Data from the third Randomised Intervention Trial of unstable Angina (RITA 3) was employed to estimate rates of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction, costs and health-related quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was estimated over patients' lifetimes within the decision-analytic model.Results: The mean incremental cost per QALY gained for an early interventional strategy was approximately £55000, £22000 and £12000 for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The early interventional strategy is approximately 1%, 35% and 95% likely to be cost-effective for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively, at a threshold of £20000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of early intervention in low-risk patients is sensitive to assumptions about the duration of the treatment effect.Conclusion: An early interventional strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS is likely to be considered cost-effective for patients at high and intermediate risk, but this is less likely to be the case for patients at low risk

Opportunities for improving the efficiency of paediatric HIV treatment programmes

Objectives: To conduct two economic analyses addressing whether to: routinely monitor HIV-infected children on antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinically or with laboratory tests; continue or stop cotrimoxazole prophylaxis when children become stabilized on ART. Design and methods: The ARROW randomized trial investigated alternative strategies to deliver paediatric ART and cotrimoxazole prophylaxis in 1206 Ugandan/Zimbabwean children. Incremental cost-effectiveness and value of implementation analyses were undertaken. Scenario analyses investigated whether laboratory monitoring (CD4 tests for efficacy monitoring; haematology/biochemistry for toxicity) could be tailored and targeted to be delivered cost-effectively. Cotrimoxazole use was examined in malaria-endemic and non-endemic settings. Results: Using all trial data, clinical monitoring delivered similar health outcomes to routine laboratory monitoring, but at a reduced cost, so was cost-effective. Continuing cotrimoxazole improved health outcomes at reduced costs. Restricting routine CD4+ monitoring to after 52 weeks following ART initiation and removing toxicity testing was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6084 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) across all age groups, but was much lower for older children (12+ years at initiation; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio =$769/QALY). Committing resources to improve cotrimoxazole implementation appears cost-effective. A healthcare system that could pay $600/QALY should be willing to spend up to$12.0 per patient-year to ensure continued provision of cotrimoxazole. Conclusion: Clinically driven monitoring of ART is cost-effective in most circumstances. Routine laboratory monitoring is generally not cost-effective at current prices, except possibly CD4 testing amongst adolescents initiating ART. Committing resources to ensure continued provision of cotrimoxazole in health facilities is more likely to represent an efficient use of resources

Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders

Introduction In Denmark, the magnitude and impact of work disability on the individual worker and society has prompted the development of a new "coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation" (CTWR) approach. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of CTWR with conventional case management (CCM) on return-to-work of workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Methods The study was a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSDs. CTWR consists of a work disability screening by an interdisciplinary team followed by the collaborative development of a RTW plan. The primary outcome variable was registered cumulative sickness absence hours during 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were work status as well as pain intensity and functional disability, measured at baseline, 3 and 12 months follow-up. The economic evaluation (intervention costs, productivity loss, and health care utilization costs) was based on administrative data derived from national registries. Results For the time intervals 0-6 months, 6-12 months, and the entire follow-up period, the number of sickness absence hours was significantly lower in the CTWR group as compared to the control group. The total costs saved in CTWR participants compared to controls were estimated at US $1,366 per person at 6 months follow-up and US$ 10,666 per person at 12 months follow-up. Conclusions Workers on sick leave for 4-12 weeks due to MSD who underwent "CTWR" by an interdisciplinary team had fewer sickness absence hours than controls. The economic evaluation showed that-in terms of productivity loss-CTWR seems to be cost saving for the society

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: When is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)? • For cost-effectiveness: The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis. • For resource implications/affordability: The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed. How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines? • For cost-effectiveness: ∘ If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations. ∘ Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive. • For resource implications/affordability: ∘ Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided. How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability? • All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country. • In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied. Resource implications for WHO • From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well

Clinical decision-making: physicians' preferences and experiences

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making has been advocated; however there are relatively few studies on physician preferences for, and experiences of, different styles of clinical decision-making as most research has focused on patient preferences and experiences. The objectives of this study were to determine 1) physician preferences for different styles of clinical decision-making; 2) styles of clinical decision-making physicians perceive themselves as practicing; and 3) the congruence between preferred and perceived style. In addition we sought to determine physician perceptions of the availability of time in visits, and their role in encouraging patients to look for health information. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S. physicians. RESULTS: 1,050 (53% response rate) physicians responded to the survey. Of these, 780 (75%) preferred to share decision-making with their patients, 142 (14%) preferred paternalism, and 118 (11%) preferred consumerism. 87% of physicians perceived themselves as practicing their preferred style. Physicians who preferred their patients to play an active role in decision-making were more likely to report encouraging patients to look for information, and to report having enough time in visits. CONCLUSION: Physicians tend to perceive themselves as practicing their preferred role in clinical decision-making. The direction of the association cannot be inferred from these data; however, we suggest that interventions aimed at promoting shared decision-making need to target physicians as well as patients

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriatic arthritis: : can we make better use of patient data registries?

The primary aim of this study is to explore the extent to which registry data may fulfill the evidence requirements of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies evaluating biologic therapies for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), where trial data are lacking or insufficient. In addition, the paper aims to identify how future data collection in PsA registries might be better tailored to inform CEA research. A review of the literature was performed to identify existing registries containing PsA patients. Where possible, information was extracted on the design and characteristics of the registries. The registries were then appraised according to a set of criteria that was formulated based on the methods currently used to model PsA in the CEA literature. A review of the literature identified 21 potentially relevant registries from around the world containing patients with PsA. There was substantial variation regarding the extent to which the registries, as a whole, were useful for the purposes of CEA studies. There were also notable disparities found in terms of the accessibility of the registries to researchers. The critical review conducted in this study showed that all of the registries identified are potentially useful, at least in some degree, for the purposes of informing CEA studies in PsA. However, no individual registry on its own was found to meet all of the evidence requirements when considering how the disease has been modeled previously

The importance of adjusting for potential confounders in Bayesian hierarchical models synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies: an application comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Informing health care decision making may necessitate the synthesis of evidence from different study designs (e.g., randomised controlled trials, non-randomised/observational studies). Methods for synthesising different types of studies have been proposed, but their routine use requires development of approaches to adjust for potential biases, especially among non-randomised studies. The objective of this study was to extend a published Bayesian hierarchical model to adjust for bias due to confounding in synthesising evidence from studies with different designs.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this new methodological approach, study estimates were adjusted for potential confounders using differences in patient characteristics (e.g., age) between study arms. The new model was applied to synthesise evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies from a published review comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms. We compared the results of the Bayesian hierarchical model adjusted for differences in study arms with: 1) unadjusted results, 2) results adjusted using aggregate study values and 3) two methods for downweighting the potentially biased non-randomised studies. Sensitivity of the results to alternative prior distributions and the inclusion of additional covariates were also assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the base case analysis, the estimated odds ratio was 0.32 (0.13,0.76) for the randomised studies alone and 0.57 (0.41,0.82) for the non-randomised studies alone. The unadjusted result for the two types combined was 0.49 (0.21,0.98). Adjusted for differences between study arms, the estimated odds ratio was 0.37 (0.17,0.77), representing a shift towards the estimate for the randomised studies alone. Adjustment for aggregate values resulted in an estimate of 0.60 (0.28,1.20). The two methods used for downweighting gave odd ratios of 0.43 (0.18,0.89) and 0.35 (0.16,0.76), respectively. Point estimates were robust but credible intervals were wider when using vaguer priors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Covariate adjustment using aggregate study values does not account for covariate imbalances between treatment arms and downweighting may not eliminate bias. Adjustment using differences in patient characteristics between arms provides a systematic way of adjusting for bias due to confounding. Within the context of a Bayesian hierarchical model, such an approach could facilitate the use of all available evidence to inform health policy decisions.</p

Meta-analysis of individual-patient data from EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years

Background: The erosion of the early mortality advantage of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains without a satisfactory explanation. Methods: An individual-patient data meta-analysis of four multicentre randomized trials of EVAR versus open repair was conducted to a prespecified analysis plan, reporting on mortality, aneurysm-related mortality and reintervention. Results: The analysis included 2783 patients, with 14 245 person-years of follow-up (median 5·5 years). Early (0–6 months after randomization) mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (46 of 1393 versus 73 of 1390 deaths; pooled hazard ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 0·89; P = 0·010), primarily because 30-day operative mortality was lower in the EVAR groups (16 deaths versus 40 for open repair; pooled odds ratio 0·40, 95 per cent c.i. 0·22 to 0·74). Later (within 3 years) the survival curves converged, remaining converged to 8 years. Beyond 3 years, aneurysm-related mortality was significantly higher in the EVAR groups (19 deaths versus 3 for open repair; pooled hazard ratio 5·16, 1·49 to 17·89; P = 0·010). Patients with moderate renal dysfunction or previous coronary artery disease had no early survival advantage under EVAR. Those with peripheral artery disease had lower mortality under open repair (39 deaths versus 62 for EVAR; P = 0·022) in the period from 6 months to 4 years after randomization. Conclusion: The early survival advantage in the EVAR group, and its subsequent erosion, were confirmed. Over 5 years, patients of marginal fitness had no early survival advantage from EVAR compared with open repair. Aneurysm-related mortality and patients with low ankle : brachial pressure index contributed to the erosion of the early survival advantage for the EVAR group. Trial registration numbers: EVAR-1, ISRCTN55703451; DREAM (Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management), NCT00421330; ACE (Anévrysme de l'aorte abdominale, Chirurgie versus Endoprothèse), NCT00224718; OVER (Open Versus Endovascular Repair Trial for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms), NCT00094575