The CEA Registry Blog

By CEA Registry Team on 7/17/2015 3:27 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Nwachukwu BU, McLawhorn AS, Simon MS, et. al. Management of End-Stage Ankle Arthritis: Cost-Utility Analysis Using Direct and Indirect Costs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Jul 15;97(14):1159-72. PubMed PMID: 26178891.

2: Rosselli D, Rueda JD, Diaz CE. Cost-effectiveness of kidney transplantation compared with chronic dialysis in end-stage renal disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2015 Jul-Aug;26(4):733-738. PubMed PMID: 26178546.

3: Sharma M, Sy S, Kim JJ. The value of male human papillomavirus vaccination in preventing cervical cancer and genital warts in a low-resource setting. BJOG. 2015 Jul 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26176301.

4: Hsieh HM, Gu SM, Shin SJ, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of a Diabetes Pay-For-Performance Program in Diabetes Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 14;10(7):e0133163. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26173086.

5: Pandya A, Sy S, Cho S, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of 10-Year Risk Thresholds for Initiation of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. JAMA. 2015 Jul 14;314(2):142-50. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6822. PubMed PMID: 26172894.

6: Rudmik L, An W, Livingstone D, et. al. Making a case for high-volume robotic surgery centers: A cost-effectiveness analysis of transoral robotic surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jul 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26171771.

7: Babović I, Arandjelović M, Plešinac S, et. al. "Vaginal delivery or caesarean section at term breech delivery-chance or risk?" J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015 Jul 14:1-10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26169706.

8: Vallejo-Torres L, Castilla I, Couce ML, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a National Newborn Screening Program for Biotinidase Deficiency. Pediatrics. 2015 Jul 13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26169436.

9: Simpson SA, McNamara R, Shaw C, et. al. A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a motivational interviewing-based intervention for weight loss maintenance in adults. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jul;19(50):1-378. doi: 10.3310/hta19500. PubMed PMID: 26168409.

10: Li R, Qu S, Zhang P, Chattopadhyay S, et. al. Economic Evaluation of Combined Diet and Physical Activity Promotion Programs to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes Among Persons at Increased Risk: A Systematic Review for the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jul 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26167962.

11: Shafiq M, Frick KD, Lee H, et. al. Management of Malignant Pleural Effusion: A Cost-Utility Analysis. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2015 Jul;22(3):215-25. PubMed PMID: 26165892.

12: Rosenthal VD, Udwadia FE, Kumar S, et. al. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of split-septum and single-use prefilled flushing device vs 3-way stopcock on central line-associated bloodstream infection rates in India: a randomized clinical trial conducted by the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). Am J Infect Control. 2015 Jul 8. pii: S0196-6553(15)00655-0. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26164769.

13: Reilly CM, Butler J, Culler SD, et. al. An Economic Evaluation of a Self-Care Intervention in Persons with Heart Failure and Diabetes. J Card Fail. 2015 Jul 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26164214.

14: Mangen MJ, Rozenbaum MH, Huijts SM, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of adult pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in the Netherlands. Eur Respir J. 2015 Jul 9. pii: ERJ-00325-2015. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26160871.

15: Banz K, Delnoy PP, Billuart JR. Exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiac resynchronization therapy with systematic device optimization vs. standard (non-systematic) optimization: a multinational economic evaluation. Health Econ Rev. 2015 Dec;5(1):57. Epub 2015 Jul 11. PubMed PMID: 26160650.

16: Kvizhinadze G, Wilson N, Nair N, et. al. How much might a society spend on life-saving interventions at different ages while remaining cost-effective? A case study in a country with detailed data. Popul Health Metr. 2015 Jul 8;13:15. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID:  26155199; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4493819.

17: Forster A, Young J, Chapman K, et. al. Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of a System of Longer-Term Stroke Care. Stroke. 2015 Jul 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26152298.

18: van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Sorge AJ, Schalij-Delfos NE. Cost and effects of risk factor guided screening strategies for retinopathy of prematurity for different treatment strategies. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015 Jul 6. doi: 10.1111/aos.12798. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26149829.

19: Leggett LE, Hauer T, Martin BJ, et. al. Optimizing Value From Cardiac Rehabilitation: A Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Age, Sex, and Clinical Subgroups. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015 Jul 3. pii: S0025-6196(15)00466-8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26149321.

20: Schauwvlieghe AM, Dijkman G, Hooymans JM, et. al. Comparing the effectiveness and costs of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: a randomized clinical trial (the BRDME study). BMC Ophthalmol. 2015 Jul 7;15(1):71. PubMed PMID: 26149170; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4491889.

21: Cillo U, Spolverato G, Vitale A, et. al. Liver Resection for Advanced Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Cost-Utility Analysis. World J Surg. 2015 Jul 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26148521.

22: Foster Page LA, Beckett DM, Cameron CM, et. al. Can the Child Health Utility 9D measure be useful in oral health research? Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015 Jul 4. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26146798.

23: ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Economic aspects of infertility care: a challenge for researchers and clinicians. Hum Reprod. 2015 Jul 3. [Epub ahead  of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 26141712.

24: Ledwidge MT, O'Connell E, Gallagher J, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care: a report from the STOP-HF (St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure) study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015 Jul;17(7):672-9. PubMed PMID: 26139583.

25: Micieli A, Wijeysundera HC, Qiu F, et. al. A Decision Analysis of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Relative to Novel and Traditional Oral Anticoagulation for Stroke Prevention in Patients with New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation. Med Decis Making. 2015 Jul 2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26139448.

26: Khan I, Morris S, Hackshaw A, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of first-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy. BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 2;5(7):e006733. PubMed PMID: 26137881.

27: Schurer JM, Rafferty E, Farag M, et. al. Echinococcosis: An Economic Evaluation of a Veterinary Public Health Intervention in Rural Canada. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Jul 2;9(7):e0003883. eCollection 2015 Jul. PubMed PMID: 26135476.

28: Deng J, Gu S, Shao H, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) versus insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies. J Med Econ. 2015 Jul 2:1-32. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26134916.

29: Haasis MA, Ceria JA, Kulpeng W, et. al. Do Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccines Represent Good Value for Money in a Lower-Middle  Income Country? A Cost-Utility Analysis in the Philippines. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 1;10(7):e0131156. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26131961.

30: Campbell JR, Sasitharan T, Marra F. A Systematic Review of Studies Evaluating the Cost Utility of Screening High-Risk Populations for Latent Tuberculosis Infection. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Jul 1. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26129810.

31: Sonneville KR, Long MW, Ward ZJ, et. al. BMI and Healthcare Cost Impact of Eliminating Tax Subsidy for Advertising Unhealthy Food to Youth. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Jul;49(1):124-34. PubMed PMID: 26094233.

32: Long MW, Gortmaker SL, Ward ZJ, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of a Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Excise Tax in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Jul;49(1):112-23. Review. PubMed PMID: 26094232.

33: Gortmaker SL, Long MW, Resch SC, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Childhood Obesity Interventions: Evidence and Methods for CHOICES. Am J Prev Med. 2015 Jul;49(1):102-11. PubMed PMID: 26094231.

34: Cortesi PA, Mantovani LG, Ciaccio A, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of New Direct-Acting Antivirals to Prevent Post-Liver Transplant Recurrent Hepatitis. Am J Transplant. 2015 Jul;15(7):1817-26. PubMed PMID: 26086300.

35: Kowada A. Cost-effectiveness of tobacco cessation support combined with tuberculosis screening among contacts who smoke. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Jul;19(7):857-63. PubMed PMID: 26056114.

36: Gu S, Deng J, Shi L, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China. J Med Econ. 2015 Jul 1:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25950193.

37: Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Jul;27(7):853-9. PubMed PMID: 25919775.

38: Fox GJ, Oxlade O, Menzies D. Fluoroquinolone Therapy for the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Contacts. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Jul 15;192(2):229-37. PubMed PMID: 25915791.

39: Cheung MC, Hay AE, Crump M, et. al. Gemcitabine/Dexamethasone/Cisplatin vs Cytarabine/Dexamethasone/Cisplatin for Relapsed or Refractory Aggressive-Histology Lymphoma: Cost-Utility Analysis of NCIC CTG LY.12. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Apr 13;107(7). Print 2015 Jul. PubMed PMID: 25868579.

40: Fergenbaum J, Bermingham S, Krahn M, et. al. Care in the Home for the Management of Chronic Heart Failure: Systematic Review and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015 Jul-Aug;30(4 Suppl 1):S44-51. PubMed PMID: 25658188.

41: Quartuccio L, di Bidino R, Ruggeri M, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Two Rituximab Retreatment Regimens for Longstanding Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Jul;67(7):947-55. PubMed PMID: 25581074.

42: Gaudette É, Goldman DP, Messali A, et. al. Do Statins Reduce the Health and Health Care Costs of Obesity? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jul;33(7):723-34. PubMed PMID: 25576147; PubMed Central PMCID:PMC4490078.

43: Finkelstein EA, Kruger E, Karnawat S. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Qsymia for Weight Loss. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jul;33(7):699-706. PubMed PMID: 24986038; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4486409.

By CEA Registry Team on 7/2/2015 11:13 AM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Shih YT, Chien CR, Moguel R, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Capitated Patient Navigation Program for Medicare Beneficiaries with Lung Cancer. Health Serv Res. 2015 Jun 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26119569.

2: Marques EM, Blom AW, Lenguerrand E, et. al. Local anaesthetic wound infiltration in addition to standard anaesthetic regimen in total hip and knee replacement: long-term cost-effectiveness analyses alongside the APEX randomised  controlled trials. BMC Med. 2015 Jun 26;13(1):151. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26116078.

3: Sharma P, Scotland G, Cruickshank M, et. al. Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation. BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 25;5(6):e007758. PubMed PMID: 26112222.

4: Giorgi MA, Caroli C, Giglio ND, et. al. Estimation of the cost-effectiveness of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists in the management of atrial fibrillation in Argentina. Health Econ Rev. 2015 Dec;5(1):52. Epub 2015 Jun  26. PubMed PMID: 26112219.

5: Chen W, Krahn M. Disease burden of chronic hepatitis C among immigrants in Canada. J Viral Hepat. 2015 Jun 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26110922.

6: Koh R, Pukallus M, Kularatna S, et. al. Relative cost-effectiveness of home visits and telephone contacts in preventing early childhood caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015 Jun 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26110399.

7: Lang B, Wong CK. A cost-effectiveness comparison between early surgery and non-surgical approach for incidental papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). Eur J Endocrinol. 2015 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26104754.

8: Chhatwal J, Mathisen M, Kantarjian H. Are high drug prices for hematologic malignancies justified? A critical analysis. Cancer. 2015 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26102457.

9: Painter JT, Fortney JC, Gifford AL, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Collaborative Care for Depression in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Clinics. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015 Jun 20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26102447.

10: Karnon J, Partington A. Cost-Value Analysis and the SAVE: A Work in Progress, But an Option for Localised Decision Making? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26100285.

11: Despiégel N, Anger D, Martin M, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Dolutegravir in HIV-1 Treatment-Naive and Treatment-Experienced Patients in Canada. Infect Dis Ther. 2015 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26099626.

12: Begum N, Stephens S, Schoeman O, et. al. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Rivaroxaban in the Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Sweden. Cardiol Ther. 2015 Jun 23. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26099515.

13: Butzke B, Oduncu FS, Severin F, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of UGT1A1 genotyping before colorectal cancer treatment with irinotecan from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Acta Oncol. 2015 Jun 22:1-11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26098842.

14: Gupta A, Mushlin AI, Kamel H, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Carotid Plaque MR Imaging as a Stroke Risk Stratification Tool in Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis. Radiology. 2015 Jun 17:142843. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26098459.

15: Tilden EL, Lee VR, Allen AJ, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Latent versus Active Labor Hospital Admission for Medically Low-Risk, Term Women. Birth. 2015 Jun 22. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26095829.

16: Svensson M, Nilsson FO, Arnberg K. Reimbursement Decisions for Pharmaceuticals in Sweden: The Impact of Disease Severity and Cost Effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26093889.

17: Katz G, Romano O, Foa C, et. al. Economic Impact of Gene Expression Profiling in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer in France. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 18;10(6):e0128880. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26086912.

18: Losina E, Dervan EE, Paltiel AD, et. al. Defining the Value of Future Research to Identify the Preferred Treatment of Meniscal Tear in the Presence of Knee Osteoarthritis. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 18;10(6):e0130256. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26086246.

19: Feingold B, Webber SA, Bryce CL, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Heart Transplantation Across a Positive Crossmatch for High Waitlist Urgency Candidates. Am J Transplant. 2015 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26082322.

20: Skedgel C, Rayson D, Younis T. Is febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors economically justified for adjuvant TC chemotherapy in breast cancer? Support Care Cancer. 2015 Jun 17. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26081595.

21: Schremser K, Rogowski WH, Adler-Reichel S, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 17. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26081300.

22: Beikler T, Flemmig TF. EAO consensus conference: economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun 15. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26077930.

23: Spolverato G, Vitale A, Ejaz A, et. al. Hepatic Resection for Disappearing Liver Metastasis: a Cost-Utility Analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Jun 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26077902.

By CEA Registry Team on 6/19/2015 11:46 AM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Beikler T, Flemmig TF. EAO consensus conference: economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26077930.

2: Bamber L, Muston D, McLeod E, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of venous thromboembolism with rivaroxaban compared with combined low molecular weight heparin/vitamin K antagonist. Thromb J. 2015 Jun 11;13:20. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26074735.

3: Poonawalla IB, Parikh RC, Du XL, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26072142.

4: Lévesque R, Marcelli D, Cardinal H, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Jun 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26071951.

5: Werner EF, Hamel MS, Orzechowski K, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Transvaginal Ultrasound Cervical Length Screening in Singletons without a Prior Preterm Birth: An Update. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26071914.

6: Handels RL, Joore MA, Tran-Duy A, et. al. Early cost-utility analysis of general and cerebrospinal fluid-specific Alzheimer's disease biomarkers for hypothetical disease-modifying treatment decision in mild cognitive impairment. Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Jun 9. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26071009.

7: Poncet A, Gencer B, Blondon M, et. al. Electrocardiographic Screening for Prolonged QT Interval to Reduce Sudden Cardiac Death in Psychiatric Patients: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 12;10(6):e0127213. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26070071.

8: Gheorghe A, Roberts T, Hemming K, et. al. Evaluating the Generalisability of Trial Results: Introducing a Centre- and Trial-Level Generalisability Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26068945.

9: Joshi S, Kulkarni V, Gangakhedkar R, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of a repeat HIV test in pregnancy in India. BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 11;5(6):e006718. PubMed PMID: 26068507.

10: McMillan A, Bratton DJ, Faria R, et. al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome in older people: PREDICT. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Jun;19(40):1-188. PubMed PMID: 26063688.

11: Nasef SA, Shaaban AA, Mould-Quevedo J, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia. Health Econ Rev. 2015 Dec;5(1):53. Epub 2015 Jun 11. PubMed PMID: 26061682.

12: Stephens S, Botteman MF, Cifaldi MA, et. al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for early, rapidly progressing rheumatoid arthritis by simulating the reversible and irreversible effects of the disease. BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 9;5(6):e006560. PubMed PMID: 26059521.

13: Pichon-Riviere A, Glujovsky D, Garay OU, et. al. Oxytocin in Uniject Disposable Auto-Disable Injection System versus Standard Use for the Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 9;10(6):e0129044. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26057930.

14: Abend NS, Topjian AA, Williams S. Could EEG monitoring in critically ill children be a cost-effective neuroprotective strategy? J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Jun 3. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26057408.

15: Yin J, Ji Z, Liang P, et. al. The doses of 10µg should replace the doses of 5µg in newborn hepatitis B vaccination in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Vaccine. 2015 Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26057138.

16: Bell JM, Shields MD, Agus A, et. al. Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Procalcitonin Test for Prodromal Meningococcal Disease-A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 8;10(6):e0128993. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26053385.

17: Schechter MS, Trueman D, Farquharson R, et. al. Inhaled Aztreonam Lysine Vs. Inhaled Tobramycin in Cystic Fibrosis: An Economic Evaluation. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015 Jun 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26053185.

18: Rudmik L, Smith KA, Kilty S. Endoscopic Polypectomy in the Clinic (EPIC): A Pilot Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015 Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26053107.

19: Hoshi D, Tanaka E, Igarashi A, et. al. Profiles of EQ-5D utility scores in the daily practice of Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis; Analysis of the IORRA database. Mod Rheumatol. 2015 Jun 8:1-24. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26052801.

20: Giannopoulou C, Sideris E, Wade R, et. al. Ipilimumab for Previously Untreated Unresectable Malignant Melanoma: A Critique of the Evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun 5. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26043718.

21: Damm O, Ultsch B, Horn J, et. al. Systematic review of models assessing the economic value of routine varicella and herpes zoster vaccination in high-income countries. BMC Public Health. 2015 Jun 5;15:533. PubMed PMID: 26041469.

22: Koeser L, Donisi V, Goldberg DP, et. al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy and combination therapy for the treatment of moderate to severe depression in the UK. Psychol Med. 2015 Jun 4:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26040631.

23: Sastry P, Hughes V, Hayes P, et. al. The ETTAA study protocol: a UK-wide observational study of 'Effective Treatments for Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm'. BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 2;5(6):e008147. PubMed PMID: 26038360.

24: Coombes BK, Connelly L, Bisset L, et. al. Economic evaluation favours physiotherapy but not corticosteroid injection as a first-line intervention for chronic lateral epicondylalgia: evidence from a randomised clinical trial. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jun 2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26036675.

25: Pennington MW, Grieve R, van der Meulen JH. Lifetime cost effectiveness of different brands of prosthesis used for total hip arthroplasty: a study using the NJR dataset. Bone Joint J. 2015 Jun;97-B(6):762-70. PubMed PMID: 26033055.

26: Ho AL, Sussman ES, Pendharkar AV, et. al. Deep brain stimulation for obesity: rationale and approach to trial design. Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Jun;38(6):E8. PubMed PMID: 26030708.

27: Owusu-Edusei K Jr, Chesson HW, Gift TL, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia vaccination programs for young women. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Jun;21(6):960-8. PubMed PMID: 25989525.

28: Li T, Liu M, Ben H, et. al. Clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with recent ischemic stroke and established peripheral artery disease: an economic evaluation in a chinese setting. Clin Drug Investig. 2015 Jun;35(6):365-74. PubMed PMID: 25985838.

29: Nelson RE, Stockmann C, Hersh AL, et. al. Economic analysis of rapid and sensitive polymerase chain reaction testing in the emergency department for influenza infections in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Jun;34(6):577-82. PubMed PMID: 25973935.

30: Petrou P. Cost-effectiveness analysis of axitinib through a probabilistic decision model. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015 Jun;16(8):1233-43. PubMed PMID: 25958963.

31: Taw MB, Reddy WD, Omole FS, et. al. Acupuncture and allergic rhinitis. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Jun;23(3):216-20. PubMed PMID: 25943957.

32: Pennington B, Akehurst R, Wasan H, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in treating patients with inoperable colorectal liver metastases in the UK. J Med Econ. 2015 Jun 9:1-8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25941769.

33: Meier G, Gregg M, Poulsen Nautrup B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccination in at-risk adults and the elderly: an updated analysis in the UK. J Med Econ. 2015 Jun 1:1-16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25903831.

34: Noordzij MA, Blanker MH. Re: Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Apr 16;107(6):djv110. Print 2015 Jun. PubMed PMID: 25888716.

35: Huetson P, Palmer JL, Levorsen A, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of once daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway. J Med Econ. 2015 Jun 1:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25853868.

36: Jódar-Sánchez F, Malet-Larrea A, Martín JJ, et. al. Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):599-610. PubMed PMID: 25774017.

37: Chatterjee A, Kosowski T, Pyfer B, et. al. A Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing the Sartorius versus the Rectus Femoris Flap in the Treatment of the Infected Vascular Groin Graft Wound. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1707-14. PubMed PMID: 25742522.

38: Naing C, Poovorawan Y, Mak JW, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of an adjunctive recombinant activated factor VIIa for on-demand treatment of bleeding episodes in dengue haemorrhagic fever. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2015 Jun;26(4):403-7. PubMed PMID: 25692521.

39: Spolverato G, Vitale A, Ejaz A, et. al. The relative net health benefit of liver resection, ablation, and transplantation for early hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2015 Jun;39(6):1474-84. PubMed PMID: 25665675.

40: Haas M, De Abreu Lourenco R. Pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain: a review of cost effectiveness. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Jun;33(6):561-9. PubMed PMID: 25604096.

41: Wilson FA, Villarreal R, Stimpson JP, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a colonoscopy screening navigator program designed for Hispanic men. J Cancer Educ. 2015 Jun;30(2):260-7. PubMed PMID: 25168070.

By CEA Registry Team on 6/15/2015 8:35 AM

By Paige Lin, Ph.D and Joshua Cohen, Ph..D.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is considered to be the preferred treatment for eligible patients with multiple myeloma (MM).  Most transplanted patients are under age 65; indeed, there has been little evidence to support the effectiveness of HSCT among older MM patients.  In our new paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, my colleagues and I examined the real-world effectiveness of HSCT among older adults with MM. (1)

We compared the survival of MM patients who had an HSCT with the survival of those who did not.  Unlike previous studies based on small randomized clinical trial samples or data from individual medical centers, our study identified 263 MM patients age ≥66 years using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare program, which collects data on US cancer cases.  Another unique aspect of our study is that we used four different analytic approaches to assess the effectiveness of HSCT, including: traditional multivariable regression; propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching, and instrumental variable analysis.  The purposes were to minimize selection bias (i.e., transplant candidates may be healthier than rejected candidates) and to evaluate the robustness of our results. 

“Overall survival has increased among older patients with multiple myeloma who received HSCTs.” [Tweet this]

We found that survival has increased among older MM patients who received HSCTs.  Results from our four analytic approaches all showed a statistically significant improvement in survival, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.61.  The consistency of the HSCT survival benefits across statistical methods supports the robustness of our results.

Despite its clinical benefits, HSCT is costly.  As a result, it probably increases initial costs even though HSCT probably decreases average costs over the longer term following transplantation.  Our related work suggests that HSCT is cost-effective among older MM patients.(2)

Stay tuned for future posts on this topic by following us on Twitter, liking us on Facebook, or checking back at www.cearegistry.org.

References:

1.    Winn AN, Shah GL, Cohen JT, Lin PJ, Parsons SK. The real world effectiveness of hematopoietic transplant among elderly individuals with multiple myeloma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 May 28;107(8).
2.    Shah G, Winn A, Lin PJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for elderly patients with multiple myeloma using the SEER-Medicare database. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation (in press).

By CEA Registry Team on 6/11/2015 9:30 AM

A recent review of the state of cost-utility analyses in Asia by Teja Thorat et. al. is this issue's featured Value in Health Regional Issues article. This post was originally published here.

By Teja Thorat, MSc, MPH

In our recently published paper in Value in Health Regional Issues, “The State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic Review,” my colleagues and I review and evaluate published, English-language, cost-utility analyses (CUAs) targeting populations in Asia.(1)

We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to summarize study features from these CUAs, such as country of study, disease area researched, study funder, and type of intervention. We also compared the Asian CUAs to CUAs focusing on non-Asian population across study features, methodological characteristics, and reporting practices, such as study perspective, discounting of costs and health benefits, time horizon, funding source, acceptability curves, and sensitivity analyses.

Asian CUAs account for 5.1% (n=175) of the total CUAs present in the CEA Registry from 2000-2012 (n=3,414). The number of Asian CUAs has steadily grown over the past years from 19 CUAs published in 2000-2004 to 107 CUAs in 2009-2012. Asian CUAs were most often set in Japan (33.1%), followed by Taiwan (15.4%), China (14.9%), Thailand (8.0%), and South Korea (6.9%).

Figure 1. Asian cost-utility analyses by country of study, 2000-2012.
 

Figure 1. Asian cost-utility analyses by country of study, 2000-2012.

The most common diseases researched were cancer (24.6%) followed by infectious diseases (13.7%) and cardiovascular disease (8.6%). Most studies were funded by government agencies (29.1%) followed by pharmaceutical and device companies (21.7%). Asian CUAs focused mainly on pharmaceutical treatments (56%) followed by screening programs (19.4%) and immunizations (12.0%). Furthermore, a higher proportion of Asian CUAs evaluated primary prevention practices such as immunizations and screenings compared to non-Asian CUAs (21.7% vs. 16.5%, p=0.07). Also, fewer Asian CUAs were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies compared to non-Asian CUAs (p=0.001). In comparing the methodological and reporting practices between the two groups, we found that the majority of Asian CUAs adhered to good reporting practices; however, they lagged in reporting sensitivity analyses, disclosing funding status, and stating the currency year.  A full description of the CEA Registry and other recent trends can be found here.(2)

References

1.    Thorat T, Lin PJ, Neumann PJ. The State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic Review. Value Health Regional Issues. 2015 May 7–13.
2.    Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et. al. The Changing Face of the Cost Utility Literature, 1990-2012. Value in Health 2015. 18(2):271-277.

By CEA Registry Team on 6/2/2015 1:21 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Selvapatt N, Ward T, Bailey H, et. al. Is antenatal screening for hepatitis C virus cost effective? A decade's experience at a London centre. J Hepatol. 2015 May 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26024832.

2: van der Schans J, Kotsopoulos N, Hoekstra PJ, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of extended-release methylphenidate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder sub-optimally treated with immediate release methylphenidate. PLoS One. 2015 May 29;10(5):e0127237. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 26024479.

3: Gaskin J, Rennie C, Coyle D. Reducing Periconceptional Methylmercury Exposure: Cost-Utility Analysis for a Proposed Screening Program for Women Planning a Pregnancy in Ontario, Canada. Environ Health Perspect. 2015 May 29. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26024213.

4: Takura T. Cost-effectiveness of hemodialysis in Japan. Contrib Nephrol. 2015;185:124-31. Epub 2015 May 19. PubMed PMID: 26023021.

5: Beyer SE, Hunink MG, Schöberl F, et. al. Different Imaging Strategies in Patients With Possible Basilar Artery Occlusion: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Stroke. 2015 May 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26022634.

6: de Koning HJ, Heijnsdijk E. Swiss Medical Board Mammography screening predictions for Switzerland: Importance of time-periods. J Med Screen. 2015 May 27. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26018779.

7: Simpson EL, Davis S, Thokala P, et. al. Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May 29. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26017401.

8: Henry N, Hawes C, Lowin J, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-dose contraceptive levonorgestrel intrauterine system in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 May 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26015090.

9: Kovic B, Xie F. Economic Evaluation of Bevacizumab for the First-Line Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme. J Clin Oncol. 2015 May 26. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 26014296.

10: Leppert MH, Campbell JD, Simpson JR, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Intra-Arterial Treatment as an Adjunct to Intravenous Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Acute Ischemic Stroke. Stroke. 2015 May 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26012639.

11: Diwakar L, Roberts TE, Cooper N, et. al. An economic evaluation of outpatient versus inpatient polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. BJOG. 2015 May 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26011792.

12: Bang H, Zhao H. Median-Based Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios with Censored Data. J Biopharm Stat. 2015 May 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26010599.

13: Hinde S, McKenna C, Whyte S, et. al. Modelling the cost-effectiveness of public awareness campaigns for the early detection of non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015 May 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26010412.

14: Meacock R, Doran T, Sutton M. What are the Costs and Benefits of Providing Comprehensive Seven-day Services for Emergency Hospital Admissions? Health Econ. 2015 May 22. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26010243.

15: Soini EJ, Hallinen T, Sokka AL, et. al. Cost-utility of first-line actinic keratosis treatments in Finland. Adv Ther. 2015 May;32(5):455-76. Epub 2015 May 26. PubMed PMID: 26006101.

16: Pietzsch JB, Garner A, Gaul C, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) for the treatment of chronic cluster headache: a model-based analysis based on the Pathway CH-1 study. J Headache Pain. 2015 Dec;16(1):530. Epub 2015 May 21. PubMed PMID: 26002638.

17: Ricci C, Casadei R, Taffurelli G, et. al. Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Benign or Premalignant Pancreatic Lesions: Is It Really More Cost-Effective than Open Approach? J Gastrointest Surg. 2015 May 22. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26001367.

18: Spolverato G, Vitale A, Ejaz A, et. al. Net health benefit of hepatic resection versus intraarterial therapies for neuroendocrine liver metastases: A Markov decision model. Surgery. 2015 May 18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25999251.

19: Manders SH, Kievit W, Adang E, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, and TNFi treatment after previous failure with TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 May 22;17:134. PubMed PMID: 25997746.

20: Douglas MP, Ladabaum U, Pletcher MJ, et. al. Economic evidence on identifying clinically actionable findings with whole-genome sequencing: a scoping review. Genet Med. 2015 May 21. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 25996638.

21: Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Ammous F, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Lumbar Epidural Steroid Injections. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25996536.

22: Konopka JF, Gomoll AH, Thornhill TS, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in younger patients: a computer model-based evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 May 20;97(10):807-17. PubMed PMID: 5995491.

23: Greving JP, Kaasjager HA, Vernooij JW, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led internet-based vascular risk factor management programme: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2015 May 20;5(5):e007128. PubMed PMID: 25995238.

24: Bish EK, Moritz ED, El-Amine H, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Babesia microti antibody and nucleic acid blood donation screening using results from prospective investigational studies. Transfusion. 2015 May 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25995054.

25: Zhang E, Wartelle-Bladou C, Lepanto L, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis screening. Eur Radiol. 2015 May 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25994191.

26: Moriarty JP, Borah BJ, Foote RL, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of proton beam therapy for intraocular melanoma. PLoS One. 2015 May 18;10(5):e0127814. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25993284.

27: Grochtdreis T, Brettschneider C, Wegener A, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for the treatment of depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015 May 19;10(5):e0123078. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25993034.

28: Carrato A, García P, López R, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) in combination with gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer in Spain: results of the PANCOSTABRAX study. Expert  Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 May 19:1-11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25991037.

29: Li M, Dick A, Montenovo M, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of liver transplantation in methylmalonic and propionic acidemias. Liver Transpl. 2015 May 19. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25990417.

30: Pichon-Riviere A, Garay OU, Augustovski F, et. al. IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL PRICING POLICIES ON ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE DRUGS: THE CASE OF TRASTUZUMAB IN SEVEN LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015 May 20:1-10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25989703.

31: Alagoz O, Durham D, Kasirajan K. Cost-effectiveness of one-time genetic testing to minimize lifetime adverse drug reactions. Pharmacogenomics J. 2015 May 19. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25987241.

By CEA Registry Team on 6/1/2015 10:28 AM

By Cayla Saret, B.A. and Peter Neumann, Sc.D

On June 2nd, CEVR will host a webinar discussing the current ramifications of Section 114 of the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), and possible future directions. Register here or see details below.

FDAMA Section 114 regulates promotion of health care economic information (HCEI) by pharmaceutical companies to payers. Below, we explore four key questions about the Section.

1.    Is the Section rarely used or rarely enforced?
•    In “What Ever Happened to FDAMA Section 114,” Dr. Neumann explores the first ten years after the statute took effect.
•    An analysis of FDA warning letters and notices of violation found no regulatory actions related to the Section.
•    Dr. Neumann explores possible reasons for the lack of enforcement, including a lack of relevant promotions (perhaps in part due to use of the Academy of Managed Care Format) or challenges faced by the FDA in monitoring and regulating such promotions. 

2.    Should the Section incorporate comparative effectiveness research (CER)?
•    A 2011 survey found that outcomes directors of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies often consider the Section in their promotions, desire more guidance, and expect increased use of the Section related to greater focus on CER.
•    A flexible reading of the Section could permit wider use of HCEI analyses and models that contain CER if they are still restricted to health plans and similar entities.
•    In a 2013 New England Journal of Medicine perspective, Dr. Neumann suggests that Congressional legislation to expand the Section to include CER, though not without risks, could allow greater use of observational data and other studies of interest to payers.
•    Dr. Neumann also called for dialogue in a video interview from the National Pharmaceutical Council.

3.    When does the Section apply?

•    Our new paper in Value in Health examines ten case studies of HCEI promotions and whether they would potentially be permitted under the current statutes.

4.    What does the future hold for the Section?
•    In a 2013 survey, health outcomes and economics research (HEOR) department representatives in the pharmaceutical industry expressed optimism about the future of HEOR.
•    Last year, the FDA indicated the agency was considering draft guidance on the Section.
•    In a recent Health Affairs Blog post, we discuss a discussion draft of the 21st Century Cures Act that contains proposed changes to potentially expand FDAMA Section 114 and to allow promotion of HCEI using clinical assumptions beyond the label indication.

Webinar details & registration information

Registration is available here. During the one-hour webinar, we'll discuss hypothetical situations to explore whether various types of information could be shared by biopharmaceutical companies under current law; potential changes to FDAMA Section 114; and related provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act.

Webinar speakers include:
     • Dr. Peter Neumann (Tufts Medical Center)
     • Dr. Eleanor Perfetto (University of Maryland)
     • Coleen Klasmeier (Sidley Austin)
     • Kimberly Westrich (National Pharmaceutical Council)

This invitation is for individuals in companies who subscribe to CEVR databases or are members of the National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC). We encourage you to share this invitation with others in your organization.

If you would like become a CEVR sponsor, please contact Julie Lannon at jlannon@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. Sponsorship includes full access to the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org) and Tufts Medicare NCD database, invitations to webinars and training workshops, and other benefits.

By CEA Registry Team on 5/22/2015 2:47 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Becerra V, Gracia A, Desai K, et. al. Cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of secondary cardiovascular disease prevention from improved adherence using a polypill in the UK. BMJ Open. 2015 May 9;5(5):e007111. PubMed PMID: 25991449.

2: Hur C, Choi SE, Kong CY, et. al. High-resolution microendoscopy for esophageal cancer screening in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015 May 14;21(18):5513-23. PubMed PMID: 25987774.

3: Jordan RE, Majothi S, Heneghan NR, et. al. Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2015 May;19(36):1-516. PubMed PMID: 25980984.

4: Donnay Candil S, Balsa Barro JA, Álvarez Hernández J, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal screening for thyroid disease in pregnant women in Spain. Endocrinol Nutr. 2015 May 11. [Epub ahead of print] English, Spanish. PubMed PMID: 25977144.

5: Piñol C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta-1b as treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis in Spain. Neurologia. 2015 May 11. [Epub ahead of print] English, Spanish. PubMed PMID: 25976942.

6: Valente M, Cortesi PA, Lassandro G, et. al. Health economic models in hemophilia A and utility assumptions from a clinician's perspective. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2015 May 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25976056.

7: Pfeil AM, Reich O, Guerra IM, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir compared to current standard treatment in swiss patients with chronic hepatitis C. PLoS One. 2015 May 14;10(5):e0126984. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25974722.

8: Deogan C, Zarabi N, Stenström N, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of School-Based Prevention of Cannabis Use. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 May 14. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25972235.

9: Borisenko O, Haude M, Hoppe UC, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of percutaneous mitral valve repair in inoperable patients with functional mitral regurgitation in German settings. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2015 May 14;15(1):43. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25971307.

10: Zhang AY, Fu AZ. Cost-effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for persistent urinary incontinence in prostate cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2015 May 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25963381.

11: Wong WW, Hicks LK, Tu HA, et. al. Hepatitis B virus screening before adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 May 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25962692.

12: Roze S, Smith-Palmer J, Valentine W, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin in Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med. 2015 May 11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25962621.

13: Isaranuwatchai W, Markle-Reid M, Hoch JS. Adjusting for Baseline Covariates in Net Benefit Regression: How You Adjust Matters. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May 10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25957531.

14: Nazir J, Heemstra L, van Engen A, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of solifenacin and oral controlled adsorption system formulation of tamsulosin in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. BMC Urol. 2015 May 9;15(1):41. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25956727.

15: Drobniewski F, Cooke M, Jordan J, et. al. Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of molecular diagnostic tests for antibiotic resistance in tuberculosis. Health Technol Assess. 2015 May;19(34):1-188. PubMed PMID: 25952553.

16: Norton G, McDonough CM, Cabral H, et. al. Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy for low back pain from the commercial payer perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 15;40(10):725-33. PubMed PMID: 25950282.

17: Gu S, Deng J, Shi L, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin versus glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China. J Med Econ. 2015 May 7:1-40. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25950193.

18: Gillett M, Brennan A, Watson P, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of testing strategies for type 2 diabetes: a modelling study.  Health Technol Assess. 2015 May;19(33):1-80. PubMed PMID: 25947106.

19: Ito K, Avorn J, Shrank WH, et. al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of providing full coverage for preventive medications after myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 May;8(3):252-9. Epub 2015 May 5. PubMed PMID: 25944633.

20: Barnett PG, Jeffers A, Smith MW, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of integrating tobacco cessation into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder treatment. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 May 4. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25943761.

21: Vestergaard AS, Ehlers LH. A Health Economic Evaluation of Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Guideline Adherence Versus the Observed Treatment Strategy Prior to 2012 in Denmark. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25943684.

22: Butt T, Lee A, Lee C, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of initiating ranibizumab therapy in eyes with neovascular AMD with good vision: an economic model using real-world outcomes. BMJ Open. 2015 May 5;5(5):e006535. PubMed PMID: 25943370.

23: Tanajewski L, Franklin M, Gkountouras G, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialist Geriatric Medical Intervention for Frail Older People Discharged from Acute Medical Units: Economic Evaluation in a Two-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial (AMIGOS). PLoS One. 2015 May 5;10(5):e0121340. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25942421.

24: Pennington B, Akehurst R, Wasan H, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in treating patients with inoperable colorectal liver metastases in the UK. J Med Econ. 2015 May 5:1-18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25941769.

25: Gallego CJ, Shirts BH, Bennette CS, et. al. Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2015 May 4. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25940718.

26: Peng S, Tafazzoli A, Dorman E, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC for first-line treatment of HIV-1 in the United States. J Med Econ. 2015 May 1:1-36. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25934146.

27: Cure S, Guerra I, Cammà C, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy. J Med Econ. 2015 May 7:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25891129.

28: Wu JX, Beni CE, Zanocco KA, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Every Three-Year Versus Annual Postoperative Surveillance for Low-Risk  Papillary Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2015 May 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25851702.

29: Linas BP, Barter DM, Morgan JR, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir-based regimens for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection. Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 5;162(9):619-29. PubMed PMID: 25820703.

30: Bamrungsawad N, Chaiyakunapruk N, Upakdee N, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of steroid-refractory dermatomyositis in Thailand. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May;33(5):521-31. PubMed PMID: 25774016.

31: Kaplan RI, De Moraes CG, Cioffi GA, et. al. Comparative Cost-effectiveness of the Baerveldt Implant, Trabeculectomy With Mitomycin, and Medical Treatment. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 May 1;133(5):560-7. PubMed PMID: 25741886.

32: Schawo S, van der Kolk A, Bouwmans C, et. al. Probabilistic Markov Model Estimating Cost Effectiveness of Methylphenidate Osmotic-Release Oral System Versus Immediate-Release Methylphenidate in Children and Adolescents: Which Information is Needed? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May;33(5):489-509. PubMed PMID: 25715975.

33: Esteves S, Alves M, Castel-Branco M, et. al. A pilot cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments in newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas: the example of 5-aminolevulinic Acid compared with white-light surgery. Neurosurgery. 2015 May;76(5):552-62. PubMed PMID: 25714513.

34: Von Bargen E, Patterson D. Cost utility of the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015 May-Jun;21(3):150-3. PubMed PMID: 25679355.

35: Wade R, Duarte A, Simmonds M, et. al. The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Aflibercept in Combination with Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-Based Therapy (FOLFIRI) for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Which has Progressed Following Prior Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy: a Critique of the Evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 May;33(5):457-66. PubMed PMID: 25616671.

36: Pietzsch JB, Liu S, Garner AM, et. al. Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Upper Airway Stimulation for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Model-Based Projection Based on the STAR Trial. Sleep. 2015 May 1;38(5):735-44. PubMed PMID: 25348126.

By CEA Registry Team on 5/15/2015 9:34 AM

Come find the CEVR team at booth #309 at the ISPOR International Meeting. Our researchers will be giving the following presentations:

Monday, May 18th

James Chambers: Poster presentation- “A systematic review of the methodological quality of network meta-analyses” 8:30 AM-2:15 PM
Peter Neumann and Cayla Saret: Poster presentation- “When can pharmaceutical companies communicate health economic claims to payers? 10 Case Studies” 3:45-7:45 PM
Matthew Chenoweth: Poster presentation- “Coverage of medical devices: Is Medicare consistent with private payers?” 3:45-7:45 PM
Peter Neumann, Teja Thorat, Cayla Saret: Poster presentation- “The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012” 3:45-7:45 PM
Natalia Olchanski: Poster presentation- “Who is spending where: Analysis of healthcare spending by Medicaid and private payers in Massachusetts” 3:45-7:45 PM

Tuesday May 19th

Teja Thorat: Poster presentation- “Understanding QALY gains across different types of cancers and cancer-related interventions” 3:45-7:45 PM
Peter Neumann: Issue Panel, Moderator- “How should the FDA regulate the communication of health economic data by pharmaceutical companies to payers?” 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM
Joshua Cohen: Workshop- “Design of bundled payment in the ambulatory setting of care” 3:45-4:45 PM
Wendy Zhong: Poster presentation- “Costs of treating skeletal-related events among prostate cancer patients with bone metastases in a commercial insured population in the US” 3:45-7:45 PM

Wednesday May 20th

Pallavi Rane: Poster presentation- “Potential savings in health care spending on ‘low-value’ interventions: Case study of arthroscopic knee surgery” 8:30 AM- 2:45 PM
Paige Lin: Poster presentation- “Willingness to pay for newborn genetic testing for Spinal Muscular Atrophy” 8:30 AM-2:45 PM

By CEA Registry Team on 5/15/2015 9:02 AM

By  Peter Neumann, Sc.D. and Cayla Saret, B.A.
 
A new discussion draft of the 21st Century Cures Act, the bipartisan initiative to accelerate development of new medical treatments, includes a section entitled “Facilitating Dissemination of Health Care Economic Information.” A previous version of the bill included only a placeholder heading for these issues. The section makes changes to Section 114 of the Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA 114), which regulates promotion of health economic information by pharmaceutical companies to formulary committees, such as a claim that a drug reduces health care costs in a given population.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never commented on Section 114 and, as we note in a new paper in which we develop hypothetical case studies for Section 114, the lack of guidance about what the original statute allows has hampered the exchange of information. Together, the proposed changes would add clarity and flexibility for pharmaceutical companies to engage with health plans about the potential value of their products, though it will require careful ongoing monitoring by regulators.

Improved Communication

The discussion draft contains a number of changes that, in our view, would help foster better communication between drug companies and payers about the real-world impacts and economic consequences of using pharmaceuticals.

The existing language of Section 114, while vaguely worded, seems to restrict the promotion of health economic information only to information that drug companies collect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), called “substantial evidence,” rather than information using “real-world” data. For example, it is unclear whether and in what circumstances a company could promote a study using an observational database that analyzes the costs of using the drug in real-world settings.

The new draft amends the clause requiring that a promotional claim “directly relate[s]” to the FDA-approved indication to the less restrictive term “relate[s].” The term, “relates,” would still require clarification, ideally in a future FDA guidance, but it suggests more flexibility around the type of health care economic information (e.g., from database analyses or economic models) that drug companies could provide proactively (as opposed to in responses to unsolicited requests) to health plan audiences.

For example, the “directly relates” language implies a strict standard — a company might not promote findings from a database study if the population differed, even in minor ways, from the population studied in the relevant randomized clinical trials. Under the proposed change, such an analysis might be deemed permissible, though again, the FDA will have to clarify the details.

The draft also adds a provision requiring, where applicable, pharmaceutical companies to provide “a conspicuous and prominent statement describing any differences between the information and the indication approved.” Such a disclosure (e.g., that a promotion is based on a database study, that the population under investigation might differ from those in RCTs, and that retrospective database analyses demonstrate associations but do not indicate causality) should increase transparency and help ensure that health plan audiences are informed and aware that the health care economic information being promoted is not necessarily based on substantial evidence from randomized clinical trials.

Furthermore, the existing statute provides a narrow definition of “health care economic information” regulated by the Section which limits the possible types of economic analyses permitted. The draft expands the definition to incorporate inputs and methods, including “clinical or other assumptions.” Because all health care economic analyses include clinical assumptions, this language would allow a much broader array of health economic analyses to be included, though again FDA clarity will be important.

Finally, the draft clarifies the permitted audience for health economic promotions. These promotions are currently limited to formulary committee members and the undefined phrase, “similar entities.” The draft includes “payor[s]” in addition to the “formulary committee[s], or other similar entit[ies]” covered by the existing statute. That is important because the original statutory language, from 1997, did not state whether payers would be included, although the draft still does not define what is meant by “similar entity” (e.g., does it include physicians working and making decisions for accountable care organizations?).

Preserving Guardrails For Public Health

Critically, the changes would continue to restrict these types of promotions to organizations (i.e., formulary committees and payers), not to general prescribers and consumers.

As we’ve argued before, that would “preserve key guardrails for public health. Promotion would be restricted to organizations that retain strong incentives to be informed and wary consumers of drug-company promotions and that increasingly employ their own experts, mine their own data, and request comparative effectiveness evidence from companies.”

It would confer upon health plans the responsibility to judge the usefulness and credibility of a wider range of health economic claims promulgated by drug companies, therefore providing more data to payers to inform coverage decisions.

As noted, several other conditions must hold if the new legislation is to be successful. First, FDA will need to clarify what types of clinical claims (either explicitly made or implied) are permissible in health care economic information.

An amendment posted to the discussion draft would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “issue draft guidance on facilitating the dissemination of responsible, truthful, and non-misleading scientific and medical information not included on the label of drugs.”

Second, ongoing work is needed on standards for observational data and other real world studies. Third, it will be important for the FDA to monitor the field to ensure that health care economic promotions are not false and misleading.

This will be a challenging area for FDA to regulate. For one, various court cases surrounding drug companies’ promotion and First Amendment rights have raised issues about the FDA’s ability to regulate truthful, non-misleading claims. For another, it is challenging for FDA to know what types of promotional claims will be made under the new health economic promotion laws given that they are business-to-business communications.

The language in the Discussion Draft may continue to change as the bill works its way through the legislative process. Still, the proposal to date reflects a step in the right direction.

This piece was originally posted on the Health Affairs Blog.

By CEA Registry Team on 5/13/2015 9:09 AM

Health payers in the U.S. have often balked at using formal cost-effectiveness analysis in coverage and reimbursement decisions for medical technologies. The Medicare program, for example, does not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in its coverage decisions for new treatments, despite fiscal challenges and multiple initiatives to achieve better value.  Less well known, however, is that cost-effectiveness analysis has played a longstanding role in informing the addition of preventive services to Medicare.  It has provided Medicare officials information to help ensure that health gains are achieved at reasonable cost. Our new paper on the topic and other research highlights, as well as upcoming conferences and events, are described in our Spring 2015 newsletter: http://tinyurl.com/CEVR15S.

By CEA Registry Team on 5/6/2015 12:03 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Bhanegaonkar AJ, Horodniceanu EG, Abdul Latiff AH, et. al. Economic value of atopic dermatitis prevention via infant formula use in high-risk Malaysian infants. Asia Pac Allergy. 2015 Apr;5(2):84-97. Epub 2015 Apr 29. PubMed PMID: 25938073.

2: Miquel-Cases A, Steuten LM, Retèl VP, et. al. Early stage cost-effectiveness analysis of a BRCA1-like test to detect triple negative breast cancers responsive to high dose alkylating chemotherapy. Breast. 2015 Apr 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25937263.

3: Brown GC, Brown MM, Turpcu A, et. al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmology. 2015 Apr 29. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25935787.

4: Brusco NK, Watts JJ, Shields N, et. al. Is cost effectiveness sustained after weekend inpatient rehabilitation? 12 month follow up from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 18;15(1):165. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25927870.

5: Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Brandeau ML. Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters. Med Decis Making. 2015 Apr 29. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25926281.

6: Burn E, Marshall AL, Miller YD, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention to increase physical activity among mothers with young children: a Markov model informed by a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 29;5(4):e007226. PubMed PMID: 25926145.

7: Li Y, Bare LA, Bender RA, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Sequencing 34 Cancer-Associated Genes as an Aid for Treatment Selection in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma. Mol Diagn Ther. 2015 Apr 30. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25926090.

8: Botteman M, Detzel P. Cost-effectiveness of partially hydrolyzed whey protein formula in the primary prevention of atopic dermatitis in high-risk urban infants in southeast Asia. Ann Nutr Metab. 2015;66 Suppl 1:26-32. Epub 2015 Apr 24. PubMed PMID: 25925338.

9: Lee JY, Kim Y, Lee TJ, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of para-aortic lymphadenectomy before chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer. J Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Apr 17. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25925292.

10: Zhang P, Yang Y, Wen F, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Apr 22. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25919775.

11: Nghiem VT, Davies KR, Beck JR, et. al. Economic evaluation of DNA ploidy analysis vs liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Br J Cancer. 2015 Apr 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25919612.

12: Imaz-Iglesia I, Miguel LG, Ayala-Morillas LE, et. al. Economic evaluation of Chagas disease screening in Spain. Acta Trop. 2015 Apr 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25917718.

13: Fox GJ, Oxlade O, Menzies D. Fluoroquinolone Therapy for the Prevention of Multi-drug Resistant Tuberculosis in Contacts: a Cost-effectiveness Analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr 27. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25915791.

14: Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, et. al. A model-based assessment of the cost-utility of strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2015 Apr 25;15(1):313. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25910169.

15: Gustafson DH Sr, McTavish F, Gustafson DH Jr, et. al. The effect of an information and communication technology (ICT) on older adults' quality of life: study protocol for a randomized control trial. Trials. 2015 Apr 25;16(1):191. PubMed PMID: 25909465.

16: Fleeman N, Bagust A, Beale S, et. al. Dabrafenib for Treating Unresectable, Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Melanoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr 24. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25906420.

17: Meier G, Gregg M, Poulsen Nautrup B. Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccination in at-risk adults and the elderly: an updated analysis in the United Kingdom. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr 23:1-40. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25903831.

18: Westerhout K, Treur M, Mehnert A, et. al. A cost utility analysis of simeprevir used with peginterferon + ribavirin in the management of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr 23:1-19. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25903830.

19: Troyer JL, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Quantitative Pretest Probability Intended to Reduce Unnecessary Medical Radiation Exposure in Emergency Department Patients With Chest Pain and Dyspnea. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25899550.

20: Groot-Jensen S, Kiessling A, Zethraeus N, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of case-based training for primary care physicians in evidence-based medicine of patients with coronary heart disease. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2015 Apr 20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25896863.

21: Harvey MJ, Gaies MG, Prosser LA. US and International In-Hospital Costs of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: a Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Apr 18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25894740.

22: Blommestein HM, Verelst SG, de Groot S, et. al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of real-world treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma using a full disease model. Eur J Haematol. 2015 Apr 18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25892333.

23: Picavet E, Cassiman D, Simoens S. What is known about the cost-effectiveness of orphan drugs? Evidence from cost-utility analyses. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2015 Jun;40(3):304-7. Epub 2015 Apr 20. PubMed PMID: 25891411.

24: Cure S, Guerra I, Cammà C, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr 20:1-26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25891129.

25: Capocci S, Smith C, Morris S, et. al. Decreasing cost effectiveness of testing for latent TB in HIV in a low TB incidence area. Eur Respir J. 2015 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25882810.

26: Mears J, Vynnycky E, Lord J, et. al. The prospective evaluation of the TB strain typing service in England: a mixed methods study. Thorax. 2015 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25882538.

27: Wu AC, Gay C, Rett MD, et. al. Pharmacogenomic test that predicts response to inhaled corticosteroids in adults with asthma likely to be cost-saving. Pharmacogenomics. 2015 Apr;16(6):591-600. Epub 2015 Apr 16. PubMed PMID: 25880024.

28: Zucco F, Ciampichini R, Lavano A, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Results From the PRECISE Study. Neuromodulation. 2015 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25879722.

By CEA Registry Team on 5/4/2015 11:20 AM

The Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org) has now been updated to include published cost-utility studies or CUAs (studies that report findings in the form of cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) through 2013.  The database contains information on cost-utility analyses on a wide range of health and medical interventions published from 1976-2013, including information on almost 12,000 standardized cost-effectiveness ratios.

The current upload adds the following to the database:

•    332 cost-utility analyses articles published in 2013
•    847 cost-effectiveness ratios
•    1,665 utility weights

The full Registry now includes:

•    4,339 cost-utility analyses articles published from 1976 through 2013
•    11,880 cost-effectiveness ratios
•    16,946 utility weights

CEVR’s premium access subscribers can access both the entire CEA Registry and the Tufts National Coverage Determination database, which provides detailed information on each national coverage decision.  Premium access subscribers can conduct advanced searches of the Registry data.

If you are interested in becoming a sponsor, please contact Julie Lannon for more information.

Stay up-to-date on all the news from the CEA Registry by following us on Twitter @TuftsCEVR or Like Us on Facebook.

-    The CEA Registry Team

By CEA Registry Team on 4/29/2015 3:53 PM

By James Chambers, Ph.D.

Clinical researchers and health care decision makers are increasingly using network meta-analysis to synthesize comparative effectiveness evidence of competing treatments that have not been studied in head-to-head clinical trials.  In a new paper published in PLOS ONE, my colleagues and I examine the methodological quality of the network meta-analysis literature.1

We systematically searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses evaluating pharmaceuticals, and identified 318 published papers through July 30th, 2014.  We assessed these network meta-analyses using objective criteria from the checklist of good research practices in the ISPOR guidance for interpreting and conducting network meta-analysis studies.2,3  Our assessment criteria pertained to the following:

1.    Methodological approach – for example, did the study report an assessment of the risk of bias in included trials, or an assessment of the consistency between direct and indirect evidence.
2.    Study transparency and reproducibility – for example, did the study report the search terms used, and were the extracted clinical trial data presented.
3.    Reporting of findings – for example, was a matrix of head-to-head comparisons presented.

To better understand the literature, we then used our assessment criteria to compare network meta-analyses published in journals with lower and higher impact factors, older and more recently published studies, and studies supported by the pharmaceutical industry and studies supported by non-industry sources or receiving no support.  The findings are presented in Table 1.

We found notable differences in the quality of network meta-analyses.  Studies published in higher impact factor journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across our assessment criteria.  We found few differences between older studies and those published more recently.

Study findings highlight the variation in published network meta-analyses and underline the need for consensus among guidelines to guide their conduct and reporting. 

Click to view a larger image.


References:

1. Chambers JD, Naci H, Wouters OJ, Pyo J, Gunjal S, Kennedy IR, Hoey MG , Winn A, Neumann PJ. An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: A systematic review PLOS ONE 2015 

2. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):417-28.

3. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A.Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):429-37.
 

By CEA Registry Team on 4/17/2015 10:06 AM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Murajda L, Aichinger E, Pfaff G, et. al. Public health management of invasive meningococcal disease in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, 2012: adherence to guidance and estimation of resources required as determined in a survey of local health authorities. BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 12;15(1):371. PubMed PMID: 25881238.

2: Ramallo-Fariña Y, García-Pérez L, Castilla-Rodríguez I, et. al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knowledge transfer and behavior modification interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients-the INDICA study: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2015 Apr 9;10(1):47. PubMed PMID: 25880498.

3: Hannemann PF, Essers BA, Schots JP, et. al. Functional outcome and cost-effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of acute scaphoid fractures: a cost-utility analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Apr 11;16(1):84. PubMed PMID: 25880388.

4: Michaud K, Strand V, Shadick NA, et. al. Outcomes and costs of incorporating a multibiomarker disease activity test in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Apr 15. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25877911.

5: Prica A, Chan K, Cheung M. Frontline rituximab monotherapy induction versus a watch and wait approach for asymptomatic advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2015 Apr 15. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25877511.

6: Tirani M, Meregaglia M, Melegaro A. Health and Economic Outcomes of Introducing the New MenB Vaccine (Bexsero) into the Italian Routine Infant Immunisation Programme. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 13;10(4):e0123383. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25874805.

7: Kip M, Monteban H, Steuten L. Long-term cost-effectiveness of Oncotype DX(®) versus current clinical practice from a Dutch cost perspective. J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Apr 15:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25872415.

8: Cheung MC, Hay AE, Crump M, et. al. Gemcitabine/Dexamethasone/Cisplatin vs Cytarabine/Dexamethasone/Cisplatin for Relapsed or Refractory Aggressive-Histology Lymphoma: Cost-Utility Analysis of NCIC CTG LY.12. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Apr 13;107(7). Print 2015 Jul. PubMed PMID: 25868579.

9: Aronsson M, Svennberg E, Rosenqvist M, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of mass screening for untreated atrial fibrillation using intermittent ECG recording. Europace. 2015 Apr 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25868469.

10: Graham DM, Isaranuwatchai W, Habbous S, et. al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination of boys for the prevention of oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer. 2015 Apr 13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25867018.

11: Forde GK, Chang J, Ziogas A, et. al. Costs of Treatment for Elderly Women with Advanced Ovarian Cancer in a Medicare Population. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Apr 9. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25866323.

12: Vitale A, Spolverato G, Burra P, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of Pre-Transplant Sofosbuvir for Preventing Recurrent HCV Infection after Liver Transplantation. Transpl Int. 2015 Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25865602.

13: Dewhurst E, Novakova B, Reuber M. A prospective service evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy for patients with refractory epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Apr 10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25864992.

14: Hirst A, Knight C, Hirst M, et. al. Tramadol and the risk of fracture in an elderly female population: a cost utility assessment with comparison to transdermal buprenorphine. Eur J Health Econ. 2015 Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25861916.

15: Lin L, Teng M, Zhao YJ, et. al. Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Statin Treatment for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2015 Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25860556.

16: Brittenden J, Cotton SC, Elders A, et. al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam sclerotherapy, endovenous laser ablation and surgery for varicose veins: results from the Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy (CLASS) randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Apr;19(27):1-342. PubMed PMID: 25858333.

17: Nimdet K, Chaiyakunapruk N, Vichansavakul K, et. al. A Systematic Review of Studies Eliciting Willingness-to-Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Does It Justify CE Threshold? PLoS One. 2015 Apr 9;10(4):e0122760. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25855971.

18: Grieve R, Gomes M, Sweeting MJ, et. al. Endovascular strategy or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: one-year outcomes from the IMPROVE randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2015 Apr 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25855369.

19: Sturkenboom IH, Hendriks JC, Graff MJ, et. al. Economic evaluation of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease: A randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord. 2015 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25854809.

20: Huetson P, Palmer JL, Levorsen A, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with Type 2 diabetes in Norway. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr 8:1-30. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25853868.

21: Wu JX, Beni CE, Zanocco K, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Long-Term Every Three-Year Versus Annual Postoperative Surveillance for Low Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2015 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25851702.

22: Stevenson M, Pandor A, Stevens JW, et. al. Nalmefene for Reducing Alcohol Consumption in People with Alcohol Dependence: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr 8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25851485.

23: Letchumanan MG, Coyte PC, Loutfy M. An economic evaluation of conception strategies for heterosexual serodiscordant couples where the male partner is HIV-positive. Antivir Ther. 2015 Apr 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25849113.

24: Cure S, Guerra I, Dusheiko G. Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C-infected patients. J Viral Hepat. 2015 Apr 7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25847572.

25: Twigg MJ, Wright D, Barton GR, et. al. The four or more medicines (FOMM) support service: results from an evaluation of a new community pharmacy service aimed at over-65s. Int J Pharm Pract. 2015 Apr 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25847545.

26: Genders TS, Petersen SE, Pugliese F, et. al. The optimal imaging strategy for patients with stable chest pain: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 7;162(7):474-84. PubMed PMID: 25844996.

27: Palace J, Duddy M, Bregenzer T, et. al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the UK Multiple Sclerosis Risk Sharing Scheme at 6 years: a clinical cohort study with natural history comparator. Lancet Neurol. 2015 Apr 1. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25841667.

28: Petrie J, Easton S, Naik V, et. al. Hospital costs of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated in intensive care; a single centre evaluation using the national tariff-based system. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 2;5(4):e005797. PubMed PMID: 25838503.

29: Sowa PM, Downes MJ, Gordon LG. Cost-effectiveness of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) plus anti-resorptive treatment in Australian women with breast cancer who receive aromatase inhibitors. J Bone Miner Metab. 2015 Apr 3. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25837431.

30: Neilson AR, Bruhn H, Bond CM, et. al. Pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care: costs and benefits in a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 1;5(4):e006874. PubMed PMID: 25833666.

31: Retèl VP, van den Boer C, Steuten LM, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of heat and moisture exchangers compared to usual care for pulmonary rehabilitation after total laryngectomy in Poland. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Apr 2. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25832966.

32: Tannenbaum C, Diaby V, Singh D, et. al. Sedative-Hypnotic Medicines and Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cost-Effectiveness (Decision-Tree) Analysis from a US Medicare Perspective. Drugs Aging. 2015 Apr;32(4):305-14. PubMed PMID: 25825121.

33: Pulikottil-Jacob R, Connock M, Kandala NB, et. al. Cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: comparison of devices with differing bearing surfaces and modes of fixation. Bone Joint J. 2015 Apr;97-B(4):449-57. PubMed PMID: 25820881.

34: Krishnan NM, Purnell C, Nahabedian MY, et. al. The Cost Effectiveness of the DIEP Flap Relative to the Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):948-58. PubMed PMID: 25811560.

35: Barzi A, Sadeghi S, Kattan MW, et. al. Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Mar 20;107(4). Print 2015 Apr. PubMed PMID: 25794514.

36: Laires PA, Ejzykowicz F, Hsu TY, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs switching to rosuvastatin therapy in Portugal. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr 10:1-8. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25788039.

37: Varier RU, Biltaji E, Smith KJ, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;36(4):438-44. PubMed PMID: 25782899.

38: Nuijten M, Roggeri DP, Roggeri A, et. al. Health economic evaluation of paricalcitol(®) versus cincalcet + calcitriol (oral) in Italy. Clin Drug Investig. 2015 Apr;35(4):229-38. PubMed PMID: 25724153.

39: Slaman J, van den Berg-Emons R, Tan SS, et. al. Cost-utility of a lifestyle intervention in adolescents and young adults with spastic cerebral palsy. J Rehabil Med. 2015 Apr 7;47(4):338-45. PubMed PMID: 25678311.

40: Rubio-Terrés C, Soria JM, Morange PE, et. al. Economic Analysis of Thrombo inCode, a Clinical-Genetic Function for Assessing the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Apr;13(2):233-42. PubMed PMID: 25652150.

41: Tuffaha HW, Roberts S, Chaboyer W, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Nutritional Support for Preventing Pressure Ulcers in High-risk Patients: Implement Now, Research Later. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Apr;13(2):167-79. PubMed PMID: 25650349.

42: Lønne G, Johnsen LG, Aas E, et. al. Comparing Cost-effectiveness of X-Stop With Minimally Invasive Decompression in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Apr 15;40(8):514-20. PubMed PMID: 25608246.

43: Romanus D, Cardarella S, Cutler D, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of multiplexed predictive biomarker screening in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Apr;10(4):586-94. PubMed PMID: 25590606.

44: Huang YL, Lasry A, Hutchinson AB, et. al. A Systematic Review on Cost Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Interventions in the United States. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Apr;13(2):149-56. PubMed PMID: 25536927.

45: Hamid R, Loveman C, Millen J, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX(®)) for the Management of Urinary Incontinence in Adults with Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity: A UK Perspective. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr;33(4):381-93. PubMed PMID: 25526842.

46: Matros E, Albornoz CR, Razdan SN, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implants versus Autologous Perforator Flaps Using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):937-46. PubMed PMID: 25517411.

47: Offodile AC 2nd, Chatterjee A, Vallejo S, et. al. A cost-utility analysis of the use of preoperative computed tomographic angiography in abdomen-based perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):662e-9e. PubMed PMID: 25517410.

48: Janzic A, Kos M. Cost effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation depending on the quality of warfarin anticoagulation control. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr;33(4):395-408. PubMed PMID: 25512096.

49: Delea TE, Amdahl J, Wang A, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Dabrafenib as a First-Line Treatment in Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr;33(4):367-80. PubMed PMID: 25488880.

50: Zhang W, Islam N, Ma C, et. al. Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for psoriasis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Apr;33(4):327-40. PubMed PMID: 25475964.

51: Huang H, Taylor DC, Carson RT, et. al. Economic evaluation of linaclotide for the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in the United States. J Med Econ. 2015 Apr;18(4):283-294. PubMed PMID: 25333331.

52: Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, et. al. Cost Per Quality-adjusted Life Year Gained of Revision Fusion for Lumbar Pseudoarthrosis: Defining the Value of Surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 Apr;28(3):101-5. PubMed PMID: 24999554.

53: Chatterjee A, Krishnan NM, Rosen JM. Complex ventral hernia repair using components separation with or without biologic mesh: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2015 Apr;74(4):471-8. PubMed PMID: 24051454.

By CEA Registry Team on 4/6/2015 12:52 PM

By Teja Thorat, MSc, MPH

In our recently published paper in Value in Health Regional Issues, “The State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic Review,” my colleagues and I review and evaluate published, English-language, cost-utility analyses (CUAs) targeting populations in Asia.(1)

We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to summarize study features from these CUAs, such as country of study, disease area researched, study funder, and type of intervention. We also compared the Asian CUAs to CUAs focusing on non-Asian population across study features, methodological characteristics, and reporting practices, such as study perspective, discounting of costs and health benefits, time horizon, funding source, acceptability curves, and sensitivity analyses.

Asian CUAs account for 5.1% (n=175) of the total CUAs present in the CEA Registry from 2000-2012 (n=3,414). The number of Asian CUAs has steadily grown over the past years from 19 CUAs published in 2000-2004 to 107 CUAs in 2009-2012. Asian CUAs were most often set in Japan (33.1%), followed by Taiwan (15.4%), China (14.9%), Thailand (8.0%), and South Korea (6.9%).

Figure 1. Asian cost-utility analyses by country of study, 2000-2012.
 

Figure 1. Asian cost-utility analyses by country of study, 2000-2012.

The most common diseases researched were cancer (24.6%) followed by infectious diseases (13.7%) and cardiovascular disease (8.6%). Most studies were funded by government agencies (29.1%) followed by pharmaceutical and device companies (21.7%). Asian CUAs focused mainly on pharmaceutical treatments (56%) followed by screening programs (19.4%) and immunizations (12.0%). Furthermore, a higher proportion of Asian CUAs evaluated primary prevention practices such as immunizations and screenings compared to non-Asian CUAs (21.7% vs. 16.5%, p=0.07). Also, fewer Asian CUAs were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies compared to non-Asian CUAs (p=0.001). In comparing the methodological and reporting practices between the two groups, we found that the majority of Asian CUAs adhered to good reporting practices; however, they lagged in reporting sensitivity analyses, disclosing funding status, and stating the currency year.  A full description of the CEA Registry and other recent trends can be found here.(2)

References

1.    Thorat T, Lin PJ, Neumann PJ. The State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic Review. Value Health Regional Issues. 2015 May 7–13.
2.    Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et. al. The Changing Face of the Cost Utility Literature, 1990-2012. Value in Health 2015. 18(2):271-277.
 

By CEA Registry Team on 4/3/2015 12:52 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Moran PS, Teljeur C, Masterson S, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of a national public access defibrillation programme. Resuscitation. 2015 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25828922.

2: Hogendoorn W, Lavida A, Hunink MG, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair, open repair, and conservative management of splenic artery aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2015 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25827968.

3: Bortoletto P, Einerson BD, Miller ES, et. al. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Morcellation Hysterectomy For Fibroids. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25827327.

4: Huntington SF, Svoboda J, Doshi JA. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Routine Surveillance Imaging of Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in First Remission. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 30. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25823735.

5: Linas BP, Barter DM, Morgan JR, et. al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir-Based Regimens for Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 2 or 3 Infection. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Mar 30. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25820703.

6: Plumpton CO, Brown I, Reuber M, et. al. Economic evaluation of a behavior-modifying intervention to enhance antiepileptic drug adherence. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Mar 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25819948.

7: Yang JJ, Thanataveerat A, Green PH, et. al. Cost Effectiveness of Routine Duodenal Biopsy Analysis for Celiac Disease During Endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25818076.

8: Charokopou M, McEwan P, Lister S, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sulfonylurea as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25817050.

9: Zhang S, Rust G, Cardarelli K, et. al. Adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy impact on clinical and economic outcomes for Medicaid enrollees with human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C coinfection. AIDS Care. 2015 Mar 27:1-7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25814041.

10: Ito K, Leslie WD. Cost-effectiveness of fracture prevention in rural women with limited access to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporos Int. 2015 Mar 26. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25807913.

11: Shen HJ, Hsu CT, Tung TH. Economic and medical benefits of ultrasound screenings for gallstone disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Mar 21;21(11):3337-43. PubMed PMID: 25805942.

12: Morris S, Gurusamy KS, Sheringham J, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 23;10(3):e0121699. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25799113.

13: Yates CJ, Chauchard MA, Liew D, et. al. Bridging the Osteoporosis Treatment Gap: Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of a Fracture Liaison Service. J Clin Densitom. 2015 Mar 18. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25797867.

14: Berndt N, Bolman C, Lechner L, et. al. Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease. Eur J Health Econ. 2015 Mar 22. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25796578.

15: Tolley K, Kemmett D, Thybo S, et. al. A cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis: a Scottish perspective. Eur J Health Econ. 2015 Mar 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25795391.

16: Athanasakis K, Tarantilis F, Tsalapati K, et. al. Cost-utility analysis of tocilizumab monotherapy in first line versus standard of care for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Greece. Rheumatol Int. 2015 Mar 21. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25794569.

17: Wolfson LJ, Walker A, Hettle R, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Bedaquiline to Drug Regimens for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in the UK. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0120763. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25794045.

18: Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Bootman JL, et. al. Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 19. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25791875.

19: Muennig PA, Quan R, Chiuzan C, et. al. Considering Whether Medicaid Is Worth the Cost: Revisiting the Oregon Health Study. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar 19:e1-e5. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25790389.

20: Laires PA, Ejzykowicz F, Hsu TY, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin versus switching to rosuvastatin therapy in Portugal. J Med Econ. 2015 Mar 19:1-24. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25788039.

21: Zhou J, Zhao R, Wen F, et. al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine, S-1 and gemcitabine plus S-1 for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer based on GEST study. Med Oncol. 2015 Apr;32(4):580. Epub 2015 Mar 19. PubMed PMID: 25788034.

22: Roberts ET, Horne A, Martin SS, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Calcium Testing for Coronary Heart and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction to Guide Statin Allocation: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3):e0116377. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25786208.

23: Joensuu JT, Huoponen S, Aaltonen KJ, et. al. The cost-effectiveness of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 17;10(3):e0119683. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25781999.

24: Yeh JM, Hur C, Ward Z, et. al. Gastric adenocarcinoma screening and prevention in the era of new biomarker and endoscopic technologies: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut. 2015 Mar 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25779597.

25: Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Smith BD, et. al. The Cost-effectiveness, Health Benefits, and Financial Costs of New Antiviral Treatments for Hepatitis C Virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Mar 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25778747.

26: Najafzadeh M, Andersson K, Shrank WH, et. al. Cost-effectiveness of novel regimens for the treatment of hepatitis C virus. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Mar 17;162(6):407-19. PubMed PMID: 25775313.

27: Chhatwal J, Kanwal F, Roberts MS, et. al. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of hepatitis C virus treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Mar 17;162(6):397-406. PubMed PMID: 25775312.

28: Lacasse Y, Bernard S, Martin S, et. al. Utility Scores In Patients With Oxygen-Dependent COPD: A Case-Control Study. COPD. 2015 Mar 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25774981.

29: Nelson RE, Angelovic AW, Nelson SD, et. al. An Economic Analysis of Adherence Engineering to Improve Use of Best Practices During Central Line Maintenance Procedures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Mar 16:1-7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25772996.

30: Slof J, Ruiz L, Vila C. Cost-effectiveness of Sativex in multiple sclerosis spasticity: new data and application to Italy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015 Mar 16:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25771713.

31: Hofmarcher T, Borg S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2015 Mar 31:1-10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25766863.

By CEA Registry Team on 3/23/2015 8:55 AM

By Cayla Saret, B.A. and Peter Neumann, Sc.D.

In our newly published paper in Value in Health, we (along with colleagues) investigated trends in the cost-utility literature.(1) Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) measure the incremental costs and health benefits of interventions compared with alternatives. Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years.

The number of CUAs published soared over the time period we studied, from 34 per year from 1990 to 1999 to 431 per year from 2010 to 2012. We examined the changing characteristics of these analyses.

“The number of CUAs published has soared from 34 per year (1990-1999) to 431 per year (2010-2012).” [Tweet this]

 Figure 1. Growth in the number of CUAs. Source: Neumann et. al. 2015.

Figure 1. Growth in the number of CUAs. Source: Neumann et. al. 2015.

We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, a database containing more than 3,700 English-language CUAs published in peer-reviewed journals through 2012 at the time of the study (updates are provided regularly).

The number of studies from the United States fell from 61% of the literature during 1990 to 1999 to 35% during 2010 to 2012. The number of studies focused on low- and middle-income countries increased, although still small compared with those focused on higher-income countries.  The number of journals publishing CUAs increased from 58 in 2000 to 251 in 2012. In 2012, 60 journals published CUAs for the first time. (See here for the complete list of journals publishing CUAs.)

Fig. 3. Distribution of CUAs by income of country (2000–2012), using 2012 World Bank income groups. Source: Neumann et. al. 2015. 


Fig. 3. Distribution of CUAs by income of country (2000–2012), using 2012 World Bank income groups.(2) High-income countries; middle-income countries; low-income countries. Source: Neumann et. al. 2015.

The most common disease areas examined by CUAs include cardiovascular diseases (18%), cancer (15%), and infectious diseases (15%). The field continues to focus in large part on pharmaceuticals (47%). The majority of CUAs have focused on treatments (65%), followed by secondary (19%) and primary (16%) prevention. Burden of disease and number of CUAs published vary by region; however, in all regions, injuries have a high burden but relatively few CUAs.


References

1.    Neumann PJ, Thorat T, Shi J, et. al. The Changing Face of the Cost Utility Literature, 1990-2012. Value in Health 2015. 18(2):271-277.
2.    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et. al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (3rd ed). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 2014.

By CEA Registry Team on 3/18/2015 9:21 AM

By Yue Zhong, MD, PhD

In our new Value in Health paper, “Cost-Utility Analyses in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Implications from Real-World Evidence,” my colleagues and I assess the opportunities for better investing health care resources for diabetes in the United States.(1) We found that most diabetes interventions with available cost-utility analyses (CUAs) may offer good value. Increased use of these interventions could potentially improve health outcomes while reducing costs.

First, we reviewed all diabetes-related CUAs catalogued in the Tufts Cost Effectiveness Analysis Registry.  The review included 196 diabetes CUAs published through the end of 2012 that reported 497 cost-effectiveness ratios. Most (73%) of the interventions were cost-saving or achieved health improvements at a cost of less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), a commonly used threshold for cost-effectiveness. The median cost-effectiveness ratio was $15,400 per QALY (2012 $US).

Next, we used Humedica electronic medical records (EMRs) to explore possible gains from reallocating resources from low-value interventions for diabetes (those that increase costs and make health worse) to high-value interventions (those that improve health and reduce costs). We identified four high value interventions (e.g., intensive hypertension control among diabetes patients with hypertension) with utilization data available. The results indicate there is substantial opportunity to shift spending to these high value interventions.

Of 400,000 diabetic patients in the Humedica EMR database, we identified 7,907 eligible patients using the low-value interventions. In this population, up to 7,117 diabetes patients could move from low- to high-value treatments, saving more than $12 million and gaining more than 1,900 QALYs.

We acknowledge at the outset that this is an exploratory analysis, and that the results may not be readily scaled to the national level. Our main objective was to demonstrate the principle of using real-world data to identify opportunities for saving money and improving health by reinvesting.  Both patients and the overall health care system could potentially benefit from shifting to the greater use of services that have demonstrated greater health benefits and lower costs.


References

1.    Yue Z, Lin P-J, Cohen JT, et. al. Cost-Utility Analyses in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Implications from Real-World Evidence. Value in Health 2015;18(2):308-314.

By CEA Registry Team on 3/16/2015 2:12 PM

By Cayla Saret, B.A.

Twice each month we highlight recently published cost-utility studies and selected reviews and editorials.

1: Vavken P, Sadoghi P, Palmer M, et. al. Platelet-Rich Plasma Reduces Retear Rates After Arthroscopic Repair of Small- and Medium-Sized Rotator Cuff Tears but Is Not Cost-Effective. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25767267.

2: Bogosian A, Chadwick P, Windgassen S, et. al. Distress improves after mindfulness training for progressive MS: A pilot randomised trial. Mult Scler. 2015 Mar 12. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25767124.

3: Hofmarcher T, Borg S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose in iron-deficient patients with chronic heart failure in Sweden. J Med Econ. 2015 Mar 12:1-20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25766863.

4: Minion LE, Bai J, Monk BJ, et. al. A markov model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of antiangiogenesis therapy using bevacizumab in advanced cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Mar 9. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25766118.

5: de Wit GA, Over EA, Schmid BV, et. al. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect. 2015 Mar 10. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25759475.

6: Bongers ML, Coupé VM, De Ruysscher D, et. al. Individualized positron emission tomography-based isotoxic accelerated radiation  therapy is cost-effective compared with conventional radiation therapy: a model-based evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Mar 15;91(4):857-65. PubMed PMID: 25752401.

7: Williams MA, Williamson EM, Heine PJ, et. al. Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH). A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Mar;19(19):1-222. PubMed PMID: 25748549.

8: Thampi N, Gurol-Urganci I, Crowcroft NS, et. al. Pertussis Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Household Contacts: A Cost-Utility Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 6;10(3):e0119271. eCollection 2015. PubMed PMID: 25747269.

9: Snarski E, Szmurło D, Hałaburda K, et. al. An economic analysis of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in the treatment of new onset type 1 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2015 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25744552.

10: Pérez A, Mezquita Raya P, Ramírez de Arellano A, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Incretin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes in Spain: 1.8 mg Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin. Diabetes Ther. 2015 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25742705.

11: Kaplan RI, De Moraes CG, Cioffi GA, et. al. Comparative Cost-effectiveness of the Baerveldt Implant, Trabeculectomy With Mitomycin, and Medical Treatment. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar 5. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25741886.

12: Mirsaeedi-Farahani K, Halpern CH, Baltuch GH, et. al. Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer disease: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Neurol. 2015 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25740662.

13: Makras P, Athanasakis K, Boubouchairopoulou N, et. al. Cost-effective osteoporosis treatment thresholds in Greece. Osteoporos Int. 2015 Mar 5. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25740208.

14: Ghomrawi HM, Eggman AA, Pearle AD. Effect of age on cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty in the u.s. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Mar 4;97(5):396-402. PubMed PMID: 25740030.

15: Chowdhury EK, Ademi Z, Moss JR, et. al; Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study Management Committee. Cost-utility of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-based treatment compared with thiazide diuretic-based treatment for hypertension in elderly australians considering diabetes as comorbidity. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Mar;94(9):e590. PubMed PMID: 25738481.

16: Soneji S, Yang J. New analysis reexamines the value of cancer care in the United States compared to Western europe. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Mar 1;34(3):390-7. PubMed PMID: 25732488.

17: Chatterjee A, Ramkumar DB, Dawli TB, et. al. The Use of Mesh versus Primary Fascial Closure of the Abdominal Donor Site When Using a Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap for Breast Reconstruction: A Cost-Utility Analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Mar;135(3):682-9. PubMed PMID: 25719690.

18: Harrison M, Collins CD. Is procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial use cost-effective in adult patients with suspected bacterial infection and sepsis? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;36(3):265-72. PubMed PMID: 25695167.

19: Parker SL, McGirt MJ. Determination of the minimum improvement in pain, disability, and health state associated with cost-effectiveness: introduction of the concept of minimum cost-effective difference. Neurosurgery. 2015 Mar;76 Suppl 1:S64-70. PubMed PMID: 25692370.

20: Zhang C, Ke W, Gao Y, et. al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antiviral Therapies for Hepatitis B e Antigen-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in China. Clin Drug Investig. 2015 Mar;35(3):197-209. PubMed PMID: 25672930.

21: Black WC. Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis. J Thorac Imaging. 2015 Mar;30(2):79-87. PubMed PMID: 25635704.

22: Lee BY, Bartsch SM, Brown ST, et. al. Quantifying the economic value and quality of life impact of earlier influenza vaccination. Med Care. 2015 Mar;53(3):218-29. PubMed PMID: 25590676.

23: Mensch A, Stock S, Stollenwerk B, et. al. Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in german patients with atrial fibrillation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Mar;33(3):271-83. PubMed PMID: 25404426.

Please view the blog archive for earlier entries

Search This Blog