The cloudy crystal ball of cost-effectiveness studies.

Despite the use of identical clinical trial data (Anastrazole, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination for the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with localised hormone receptor-positive breast cancer data), not dependent on differences between countries, the outcome of 11 published cost-effectiveness analyses varied more than 20-fold. The observed wide variation in predicted life-years gained (a parameter derived from clinical trial data) demonstrates that authors used substantially different methods for handling the same data. We therefore consider it to be of utmost importance to strive for standardization of and better guidance for disease-specific modeling in economic evaluations.

Reviewing the cost-effectiveness of endocrine early breast cancer therapies: influence of differences in modeling methods on outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review is primarily to identify published cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses of endocrine therapies for the treatment of early breast cancer. A secondary objective is to identify whether differences in seven modeling characteristics are related to differences in outcome of these cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed full economic evaluations of endocrine treatments of early breast cancer published in the English language between 2000 and December 2010. Information from these publications was abstracted regarding outcome, quality, and modeling methods. RESULTS: We identified 20 economic evaluations comprising 5 different endocrine therapeutic strategies, which are all assessed more then once. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the reported outcomes varied widely for identical therapies. For anastrazole compared to tamoxifen, incremental life-years gained even ranged from 0.16 to 0.550 with an ICER ranging from €3,958 to €75,331. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained ranged from 0.092 to 0.378 with a cost per QALY gained varying from €3,696 to €120,265. These large differences in outcome were related to different modeling methods, with differences in time horizon and use of a carryover effect as most prominent causes. CONCLUSION: Despite similar comparators and logical differences due to transferability issues, the outcomes of the included studies varied widely. To increase comparability and transparency of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, standardization of modeling methods for different therapeutic groups/diseases and the availability of a detailed and complete description of the model used in the evaluation is advocated. Recommendations for standardization in modeling treatment strategies in early breast cancer are presented.

Market access to new anticancer medicines for children and adolescents with cancer in Europe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an alarming delay in Europe for anticancer medicines becoming accessible for children. Following a paediatric European Union marketing authorisation, national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies evaluate effectiveness, and safety of medicines to support decision on their cost and reimbursement. This study (a SIOPE Access to Medicines project) aimed to evaluate how these HTA evaluations take place for anticancer medicines indicated for paediatric use in Europe and to explore where the delays for market access originate. METHODS: We obtained HTA reports from the public domain for nine European countries for blinatumomab, dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel. We evaluated the time elapsed between marketing authorisation for a paediatric indication and a national HTA decision and the nature of the decision. RESULTS: Out of 23 HTA decisions (four countries without blinatumomab report), 18 were positive, two with restrictions, three negative. For blinatumomab, tisagenlecleucel and dinutuximab beta, the median time to an HTA decision after regulatory approval for paediatric use was 353 days (range 193-751), 141 days (range 77-517) and 515 days (range 0-780), respectively, with variability between countries. Dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel were first introduced in children, but did not result in shorter time to HTA decision. For blinatumomab, marketing authorisation followed 1008 days after the indication in adults, with HTA applications submitted a median of 167 days later, and a recommendation after 145 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals ample variability in HTA decision making in nine European Union countries. Collaboration and alignment of required evidence is needed to facilitate robust scientific HTA assessments, also considering methodological challenges in paediatric oncology.

Cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing in progressive neurological disorders of children.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the diagnostic utility and the cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing (WES) as a routine early-diagnostic tool in children with progressive neurological disorders. METHODS: Patients with infantile-onset severe neurological diseases or childhood-onset progressive neurological disorders were prospectively recruited to this WES study, in the pediatric neurology clinic at Helsinki University Hospital during 2016-2018. A total of 48 patients underwent a singleton WES. A control group of 49 children underwent traditional diagnostic examinations and were retrospectively collected from the hospital records. Their use of health care services, related to the diagnostic process, was gathered. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional diagnosis was calculated from the health care provider perspective. Bootstrapping methods were used to estimate the uncertainty of cost-effectiveness outcomes. RESULTS: WES provided a better diagnostic yield (38%) than diagnostic pathway that did not prioritize WES in early diagnosis (25%). WES outperformed other diagnostic paths especially when made early, within one year of first admission (44%). Cost-effectiveness in our results are conservative, affected by WES costs during 2016-18. CONCLUSIONS: WES is an efficient and cost-effective diagnostic tool that should be prioritized in early diagnostic path of children with progressive neurological disorders. The progressively decreasing price of the test improves cost-effectiveness further.

Medical costs of children admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit: The role and possible economic impact of WES in early diagnosis.

It has been estimated that at least 6.0% of neonates admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit remains genetically undiagnosed because genetic testing is not routinely performed. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of average healthcare costs for patients admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and to assess possible impact of implementing Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) on these total healthcare costs. Hereto, we retrospectively collected postnatal healthcare data of all patients admitted to the level IV Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at the Radboudumc (October 2013-October 2015) and linked unit costs to these healthcare consumptions. Average healthcare costs were calculated and a distinction between patients was made based on performance of genetic tests and the presence of congenital anomalies. Overall, on average €26,627 was spent per patient. Genetic costs accounted for 2.3% of all costs. Healthcare costs were higher for patients with congenital anomalies compared to patients without congenital anomalies. Patients with genetic diagnostics were also more expensive than patients without genetic diagnostics. We next modelled four scenarios based on clinical preselection. First, when performing trio-WES for all patients instead of current diagnostics, overall healthcare costs will increase with 22.2%. Second, performing trio-WES only for patients with multiple congenital anomalies will not result in any cost changes, but this would leave patients with an isolated congenital anomalies untested. We therefore next modelled a scenario performing trio-WES for all patients with congenital anomalies, increasing the average per patient healthcare costs by 5.3%. This will rise to a maximum of 5.5% when also modelling for an extra genetic test for clinically selected patients to establish genetic diagnoses that are undetectable by WES. In conclusion, genetic diagnostic testing accounted for a small fraction of total costs. Implementation of trio-WES as first-tier test for all patients with congenital anomalies will lead to a limited increase in overall healthcare budget, but will facilitate personalized treatments options guided by the diagnoses made.

Economic evaluations of exome and genome sequencing in pediatric genetics: considerations towards a consensus strategy.

OBJECTIVE: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used for the diagnosis of rare genetic disorders. The aim of this study is to review the different approaches for economic evaluations of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) in pediatric care used to date, to identify all costs, effects, and time horizons taken into account. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of NGS applications in pediatric diagnostics, i.e. exome sequencing (ES) and/or genome sequencing (GS). Information regarding methodological approach, costs, effects, and time horizon was abstracted from these publications. RESULTS: Twenty-eight economic evaluations of ES/GS within pediatrics were identified. Costs included were mainly restricted to direct in-hospital healthcare costs and varied widely in inclusion of sort of costs and time-horizon. Nineteen studies included diagnostic yield and eight studies included cost-effectiveness as outcome measures. Studies varied greatly in terms of included sort of costs data, effects, and time horizon. CONCLUSION: Large differences in inclusion of cost and effect parameters were identified between studies. Validity of outcomes can therefore be questioned, which hinders valid comparison and widespread generalization of conclusions. In addition to current health economic guidance, specific guidance for evaluations in pediatric care is therefore necessary to improve the validity of outcomes and furthermore facilitate comparable decision-making for implementing novel NGS-based diagnostic modalities in pediatric genetics and beyond.

Whole-exome sequencing in intellectual disability; cost before and after a diagnosis.

Clinical application of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing (WES and WGS) has led to an increasing interest in how it could drive healthcare decisions. As with any healthcare innovation, implementation of next-generation sequencing in the clinic raises questions on affordability and costing impact for society as a whole. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of 370 patients with ID who had undergone WES at various stages of their diagnostic trajectory. We collected all medical interventions performed on these patients at the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, the Netherlands. We categorized the patients according to their WES-based preliminary diagnosis ("yes", "no", and "uncertain"), and assessed the per-patient healthcare activities and corresponding costs before (pre) and after (post) genetic diagnosis. The WES-specific diagnostic yield among the 370 patients was 35% (128 patients). Pre-WES costs were €7.225 on average. Highest average costs were observed for laboratory-based tests, including genetics, followed by consults. Compared to pre-WES costs, the post-WES costs were on average 80% lower per patient, irrespective of the WES-based diagnostic outcome. Application of WES results in a considerable reduction of healthcare costs, not just in current settings, but even more so when applied earlier in the diagnostic trajectory (genetics-first). In such context, WES may replace less cost-effective traditional technologies without compromising the diagnostic yield. Moreover, WES appears to harbor an intrinsic "end-of-trajectory" effect; regardless of the diagnosis, downstream medical interventions decrease substantially in both number and costs.

The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: the need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance.

INTRODUCTION: Structural uncertainty relates to differences in model structure and parameterization. For many published health economic analyses in oncology, substantial differences in model structure exist, leading to differences in analysis outcomes and potentially impacting decision-making processes. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to identify differences in model structure and parameterization for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing tamoxifen and anastrazole for adjuvant breast cancer (ABC) treatment; and (2) to quantify the impact of these differences on analysis outcome metrics. METHODS: The analysis consisted of four steps: (1) review of the literature for identification of eligible CEAs; (2) definition and implementation of a base model structure, which included the core structural components for all identified CEAs; (3) definition and implementation of changes or additions in the base model structure or parameterization; and (4) quantification of the impact of changes in model structure or parameterizations on the analysis outcome metrics life-years gained (LYG), incremental costs (IC) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Eleven CEA analyses comparing anastrazole and tamoxifen as ABC treatment were identified. The base model consisted of the following health states: (1) on treatment; (2) off treatment; (3) local recurrence; (4) metastatic disease; (5) death due to breast cancer; and (6) death due to other causes. The base model estimates of anastrazole versus tamoxifen for the LYG, IC and ICER were 0.263 years, €3,647 and €13,868/LYG, respectively. In the published models that were evaluated, differences in model structure included the addition of different recurrence health states, and associated transition rates were identified. Differences in parameterization were related to the incidences of recurrence, local recurrence to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death. The separate impact of these model components on the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.356 years, while incremental costs ranged from €3,490 to €3,714 and ICERs ranged from €9,804/LYG to €17,966/LYG. When we re-analyzed the published CEAs in our framework by including their respective model properties, the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.383 years, IC ranged from €3,556 to €3,731 and ICERs ranged from €9,683/LYG to €17,570/LYG. CONCLUSION: Differences in model structure and parameterization lead to substantial differences in analysis outcome metrics. This analysis supports the need for more guidance regarding structural uncertainty and the use of standardized disease-specific models for health economic analyses of adjuvant endocrine breast cancer therapies. The developed approach in the current analysis could potentially serve as a template for further evaluations of structural uncertainty and development of disease-specific models.

Utility and work productivity data for economic evaluation of breast cancer therapies in the Netherlands and Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate utility values in laypeople and productivity loss for women with breast cancer in Sweden and the Netherlands. METHODS: To capture utilities, validated health state vignettes were used, which were translated into Dutch and Swedish. They described progressive disease, stable disease, and 7 grade 3/4 adverse events. One hundred members of the general public in each country rated the states using the visual analog scale and time trade-off method. To assess productivity, women who had recently completed or were currently receiving treatment for early or advanced breast cancer (the Netherlands, n = 161; Sweden, n = 52) completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-General Health (WPAI-GH) questionnaire. Data were analyzed using means (SD). RESULTS: The utility study showed that the Swedish sample rated progressive and stable disease (mean, 0.61 [0.07] and 0.81 [0.05], respectively) higher than did the Dutch sample (0.49 [0.06] and 0.69 [0.05]). The health states incorporating the toxicities in both countries produced similar mean scores. Results of the WPAI-GH showed that those currently receiving treatment reported productivity reductions of 69% (the Netherlands) and 72% (Sweden); those who had recently completed therapy reported reductions of 41% (the Netherlands) and 40% (Sweden). CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the utility scores between the 2 countries underline the importance of capturing country-specific values. The significant impact of adverse events on health-related quality of life was also highlighted. The WPAI-GH results demonstrated how the negative impact of breast cancer on productivity persists after women have completed their treatment.

Development of a framework for cohort simulation in cost-effectiveness analyses using a multistep ordinary differential equation solver algorithm in R.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic processes in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are typically described using cohort simulations, which can be implemented as Markov models, or alternatively using systems of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). In the field of CEA, simple and potentially inaccurate single-step algorithms are commonly used for solving ODEs, which can potentially induce bias, especially if an incorrect step size is used. The aims of this project were 1) to implement and demonstrate the use of a modern and well-established hybrid linear multistep ODE solver algorithm (LSODA) in the context of CEA using the statistical scripting language R and 2) to quantify bias in outcome for a case example CEA as generated by a commonly used single-step ODE solver algorithm. METHODS: A previously published CEA comparing the adjuvant breast cancer therapies anastrozole and tamoxifen was used as a case example to implement the computational framework. A commonly used single-step algorithm was compared with the proposed multistep algorithm to quantify bias in the single-step method. RESULTS: A framework implementing the multistep ODE solver LSODA was successfully developed. When a single-step ODE solver with step size of 1 year was used, incremental life-years gained was underestimated by 0.016 years (5.6% relative error, RE) and £158 (6.8% RE) compared with the multistep method. CONCLUSION: The framework was found suitable for the conduct of CEAs. We demonstrated how the use of single-step algorithms with insufficiently small step sizes causes unnecessary bias in outcomes measures of CEAs. Scripting languages such as R can further improve transparency, reproducibility, and overall integrity in the field of health economics.