Methods for Including Adverse Events in Economic Evaluations: Suggestions for Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in economic evaluation of health technologies is required to aid efficient healthcare decisions. Our objective was to identify the key issues related to the inclusion of adverse events (AEs) in economic evaluation and explore perspectives for good practice recommendations to handle these issues. METHODS: We focused on the frequently encountered methodological issues related to the integration of AEs in economic evaluations of health technologies. We distinguished the following elements: the incorporation of AEs in decision models, the terminology of AEs, the estimation of AEs consequences in terms of quality of life (QoL) and costs, and the exploration of the uncertainty related to the impact of AEs on the economic results. RESULTS: We illustrated and discussed each of the identified issues by giving health technology assessment examples. We focused on the extent to which the integration of AEs in decision models can be improved by dealing with the lack of relevant real-world safety data, estimating the consequences of AEs (eg, for costs and QoL loss), exploring the impacts of AEs that are not adequately captured in current measurement of health-related QoL, and identifying the need for development of a good terminology of relevant types of AEs to be incorporated in economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: Based on a reflection the key methodological issues related to the incorporation of adverse drug events in economic evaluations, we suggested several recommendations to serve a starting point for health technology assessment agencies and researchers to develop good research practices in this field.

Acceptability of Using Real-World Data to Estimate Relative Treatment Effects in Health Technology Assessments: Barriers and Future Steps.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence about the comparative effects of new treatments is typically collected in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In some instances, RCTs are not possible, or their value is limited by an inability to capture treatment effects over the longer term or in all relevant population subgroups. In these cases, nonrandomized studies (NRS) using real-world data (RWD) are increasingly used to complement trial evidence on treatment effects for health technology assessment (HTA). However, there have been concerns over a lack of acceptability of this evidence by HTA agencies. This article aims to identify the barriers to the acceptance of NRS and steps that may facilitate increases in the acceptability of NRS in the future. METHODS: Opinions of the authorship team based on their experience in real-world evidence research in academic, HTA, and industry settings, supported by a critical assessment of existing studies. RESULTS: Barriers were identified that are applicable to key stakeholder groups, including HTA agencies (eg, the lack of comprehensive methodological guidelines for using RWD), evidence generators (eg, avoidable deviations from best practices), and external stakeholders (eg, data controllers providing timely access to high-quality RWD). Future steps that may facilitate future acceptability of NRS include improvements in the quality, integration, and accessibility of RWD, wider use of demonstration projects to highlight the value and applicability of nonrandomized designs, living, and more detailed HTA guidelines, and improvements in HTA infrastructure relating to RWD. CONCLUSION: NRS can represent a crucial source of evidence on treatment effects for use in HTA when RCT evidence is limited.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions That Use Artificial Intelligence (CHEERS-AI).

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations (EEs) are commonly used by decision makers to understand the value of health interventions. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) provide reporting guidelines for EEs. Healthcare systems will increasingly see new interventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform their function. We developed Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that use AI (CHEERS-AI) to ensure EEs of AI-based health interventions are reported in a transparent and reproducible manner. METHODS: Potential CHEERS-AI reporting items were informed by 2 published systematic literature reviews of EEs and a contemporary update. A Delphi study was conducted using 3 survey rounds to elicit multidisciplinary expert views on 26 potential items, through a 9-point Likert rating scale and qualitative comments. An online consensus meeting was held to finalize outstanding reporting items. A digital health patient group reviewed the final checklist from a patient perspective. RESULTS: A total of 58 participants responded to survey round 1, 42, and 31 of whom responded to rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Nine participants joined the consensus meeting. Ultimately, 38 reporting items were included in CHEERS-AI. They comprised the 28 original CHEERS 2022 items, plus 10 new AI-specific reporting items. Additionally, 8 of the original CHEERS 2022 items were elaborated on to ensure AI-specific nuance is reported. CONCLUSIONS: CHEERS-AI should be used when reporting an EE of an intervention that uses AI to perform its function. CHEERS-AI will help decision makers and reviewers to understand important AI-specific details of an intervention, and any implications for the EE methods used and cost-effectiveness conclusions.

A Systematic Literature Review of Gaps and Challenges in Value Assessment of Biosimilars: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide an overview of the gaps and challenges in the value assessment of biosimilars and to identify potential approaches to address them. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, international team of biosimilar experts identified gaps and challenges. A systematic review was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; and of the gray literature. Preliminary results were presented at ISPOR conferences and this article benefited from 2 review rounds among ISPOR Biosimilar Special Interest Group members. RESULTS: Given that a biosimilar is highly similar to its reference biologic, health technology assessment agencies should accept the comparability exercise approved by regulatory authorities and, thus, conduct a price comparison when biosimilar reimbursement is requested for the same indication as the reference biologic. If the reference biologic is not reimbursed or is not the standard of care, a full economic evaluation of the biosimilar versus a relevant comparator needs to be conducted. To date, little consideration has been given to specific challenges, such as how biosimilar value assessment can account for the nocebo effect, potential differences between biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, the availability of intravenous and subcutaneous administration forms or different administration devices for the same active compound, value-added services, and the contribution of biosimilars for generating health gain at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to gather further insights in the methodology of value assessment for biosimilars, and health technology assessment agencies need to develop more elaborate guidance on biosimilar value assessment in specific circumstances.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without asthma from the United States, South Korea, and Europe.

Objective: Large international comparisons describing the clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 are limited. The aim of the study was to perform a large-scale descriptive characterization of COVID-19 patients with asthma.Methods: We included nine databases contributing data from January to June 2020 from the US, South Korea (KR), Spain, UK and the Netherlands. We defined two cohorts of COVID-19 patients ('diagnosed' and 'hospitalized') based on COVID-19 disease codes. We followed patients from COVID-19 index date to 30 days or death. We performed descriptive analysis and reported the frequency of characteristics and outcomes in people with asthma defined by codes and prescriptions.Results: The diagnosed and hospitalized cohorts contained 666,933 and 159,552 COVID-19 patients respectively. Exacerbation in people with asthma was recorded in 1.6-8.6% of patients at presentation. Asthma prevalence ranged from 6.2% (95% CI 5.7-6.8) to 18.5% (95% CI 18.2-18.8) in the diagnosed cohort and 5.2% (95% CI 4.0-6.8) to 20.5% (95% CI 18.6-22.6) in the hospitalized cohort. Asthma patients with COVID-19 had high prevalence of comorbidity including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and obesity. Mortality ranged from 2.1% (95% CI 1.8-2.4) to 16.9% (95% CI 13.8-20.5) and similar or lower compared to COVID-19 patients without asthma. Acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 15-30% of hospitalized COVID-19 asthma patients.Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma among COVID-19 patients varies internationally. Asthma patients with COVID-19 have high comorbidity. The prevalence of asthma exacerbation at presentation was low. Whilst mortality was similar among COVID-19 patients with and without asthma, this could be confounded by differences in clinical characteristics. Further research could help identify high-risk asthma patients.[Box: see text]Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2021.2025392 .

Health technology assessment of tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19: A proposed approach and best-practice recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop best-practice guidance for health technology assessment (HTA) agencies when appraising diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We used a policy sandbox approach to develop best-practice guidance for HTA agencies to approach known challenges associated with assessing tests and treatments for COVID-19. The guidance was developed by a multi-stakeholder workshop of twenty-one participants representing HTA agencies, clinical and patient experts, academia, industry, and a payer, from across Europe and North America. The workshop was supported by extensive background work to identify the key challenges, including: targeted reviews of existing COVID-related methods guidance for assessing interventions and clinical guidelines, engagement with clinical experts, a survey and workshop of HTA agencies, a systematic review of published economic evaluations, and a workshop of health economic modelers. RESULTS: We suggest HTA agencies should consider using other types of evidence (e.g., real world) where high-quality randomized controlled trials may be lacking and healthcare systems would value timely HTA outputs. A "living" HTA approach may be useful, given the context of an evolving disease, scientific understanding and evidence base, allowing for decisions to be efficiently revisited in response to new information; particularly, if supported by a common "disease model" for COVID-19. Innovative ways of engaging with the public and clinicians, and early engagement with regulators and payers, are recommended. CONCLUSIONS: HTA agencies should consider the elements of this guidance that are most suited to their existing processes to enable them to assess the effectiveness and value of interventions for COVID-19.

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: As healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a "living" systematic review approach. METHODS: Key databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer. RESULTS: Overall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price. CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this "living" review.

Capturing what matters: updating NICE methods guidance on measuring and valuing health.

In July 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) initiated a major review of its health technology evaluation methods to update its methods guide. This update has recently concluded with the publication of its health technology evaluation manual in January 2022. This paper reports the methods and findings of the review in relation to the recommended approach to use for the measurement and valuation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in submissions to NICE. Issues related to (i) the methods to use when NICE's preferred measure (EQ-5D) is not appropriate or not available; (ii) adjusting health state utility values over time to account for age; (iii) measuring and valuing HRQoL in children and young people; and (iv) including carers' QoL in economic evaluations were included in this review. This commentary summarises the methods used to undertake the review, its findings, and the changes to NICE methods that were proposed based on these findings. It also outlines topics where further research is needed before definitive methods guidance can be issued. The broad proposals described here were subject to a public consultation in 2020 and a further consultation on the updated methods guidance was completed in October 2021 before the publication of the manual in January 2022.

Characteristics and outcomes of 627 044 COVID-19 patients living with and without obesity in the United States, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: A detailed characterization of patients with COVID-19 living with obesity has not yet been undertaken. We aimed to describe and compare the demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients living with obesity (PLWO) to those of patients living without obesity. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study based on outpatient/inpatient care and claims data from January to June 2020 from Spain, the UK, and the US. We used six databases standardized to the OMOP common data model. We defined two non-mutually exclusive cohorts of patients diagnosed and/or hospitalized with COVID-19; patients were followed from index date to 30 days or death. We report the frequency of demographics, prior medical conditions, and 30-days outcomes (hospitalization, events, and death) by obesity status. RESULTS: We included 627 044 (Spain: 122 058, UK: 2336, and US: 502 650) diagnosed and 160 013 (Spain: 18 197, US: 141 816) hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The prevalence of obesity was higher among patients hospitalized (39.9%, 95%CI: 39.8-40.0) than among those diagnosed with COVID-19 (33.1%; 95%CI: 33.0-33.2). In both cohorts, PLWO were more often female. Hospitalized PLWO were younger than patients without obesity. Overall, COVID-19 PLWO were more likely to have prior medical conditions, present with cardiovascular and respiratory events during hospitalization, or require intensive services compared to COVID-19 patients without obesity. CONCLUSION: We show that PLWO differ from patients without obesity in a wide range of medical conditions and present with more severe forms of COVID-19, with higher hospitalization rates and intensive services requirements. These findings can help guiding preventive strategies of COVID-19 infection and complications and generating hypotheses for causal inference studies.

COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with autoimmune diseases were advised to shield to avoid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but information on their prognosis is lacking. We characterized 30-day outcomes and mortality after hospitalization with COVID-19 among patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, and compared outcomes after hospital admissions among similar patients with seasonal influenza. METHODS: A multinational network cohort study was conducted using electronic health records data from Columbia University Irving Medical Center [USA, Optum (USA), Department of Veterans Affairs (USA), Information System for Research in Primary Care-Hospitalization Linked Data (Spain) and claims data from IQVIA Open Claims (USA) and Health Insurance and Review Assessment (South Korea). All patients with prevalent autoimmune diseases, diagnosed and/or hospitalized between January and June 2020 with COVID-19, and similar patients hospitalized with influenza in 2017-18 were included. Outcomes were death and complications within 30 days of hospitalization. RESULTS: We studied 133 589 patients diagnosed and 48 418 hospitalized with COVID-19 with prevalent autoimmune diseases. Most patients were female, aged ≥50 years with previous comorbidities. The prevalence of hypertension (45.5-93.2%), chronic kidney disease (14.0-52.7%) and heart disease (29.0-83.8%) was higher in hospitalized vs diagnosed patients with COVID-19. Compared with 70 660 hospitalized with influenza, those admitted with COVID-19 had more respiratory complications including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and higher 30-day mortality (2.2-4.3% vs 6.32-24.6%). CONCLUSION: Compared with influenza, COVID-19 is a more severe disease, leading to more complications and higher mortality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiviral Treatments for Pandemics and Outbreaks of Respiratory Illnesses, Including COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Published Economic Evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: To review published economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of antiviral treatment for pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched Medline (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (Ovid), EconLit (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (Ovid), and Health Technology Assessment (Ovid). The search was last rerun on July 5, 2020. Citation tracking and reference checking were used. Only full economic evaluations published as peer-reviewed articles in the last 10 years were included. Studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence economic evaluation checklist. RESULTS: Overall, 782 records were identified, of which 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were mostly conducted in high-income countries. All were model-based. Seven (50%) were cost-utility analyses, 4 (28.6%) were cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 (14.3%) were cost-consequences analyses, and 1 (7.1%) was a cost-benefit analysis. Strategies including antiviral treatment were found to be either cost-saving or cost-effective, at the study-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Empirical treatment was more cost-effective than test-guided treatment for young adults but less so for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral treatment for managing pandemics and outbreaks of respiratory illnesses that have very high case fatality rate, similar to COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be cost-effective either as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted strategy. Investing in the development of such curative treatments and promptly evaluating their cost-effectiveness, relative to other strategies in use at the time of their introduction should be the focus going forward to inform resource allocation decisions particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies for People Undergoing Elective Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in people undergoing elective total hip replacement. METHODS: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were conducted for 3 outcomes: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding (MB). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted and compared. The median relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) compared with no prophylaxis, with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs), rank, and probability of being the best, were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-two (n = 24 374, 26 interventions), 30 (n = 28 842, 23 interventions), and 24 (n = 31 792, 15 interventions) randomized controlled trials were included in the DVT, PE, and MB networks, respectively. Rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for DVT (RR 0.06 [95% CrI 0.01-0.29]). Strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin followed by aspirin had the highest probability of reducing the risk of PE and MB (RR 0.0011 [95% CrI 0.00-0.096] and OR 0.37 [95% CrI 0.00-26.96], respectively). The ranking of efficacy estimates across the 3 networks, particularly PE and MB, had very wide CrIs, indicating high degree of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin given for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days had the best benefit-risk balance, with the highest probability of being the best on the basis of the results of the PE and MB network meta-analyses. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty around the median ranks of the interventions.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials comparing two or more basal insulin regimens were conducted. The following basal insulin regimens were included: Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (iNPH) (once [od], twice [bid], and four times daily [qid]), insulin detemir (iDet) (od and bid), insulin glargine 100 IU (iGlarg) (od), and insulin degludec (iDegl) (od). We searched the following databases: MEDLINE via OVID, Embase via OVID, and the Cochrane Library (Wiley). Study quality was appraised using Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist for randomized controlled trials. Two outcomes (change in hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] and rate of severe/major hypoglycemia [SH]) were analyzed. Network inconsistency was assessed using Bucher and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Thirty studies met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-five were included in the HbA1c network and 16 in the SH network. All studies were of moderate quality. No network inconsistency was evident in the HbA1c network. Of the seven regimens of interest, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being best (mean change in HbA1c -0.48; 95% credible interval -0.69 to -0.29). In contrast, the SH network demonstrated both considerable uncertainty and significant network inconsistency (χ2 test, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Of the specified frequency regimens, iDet (bid) had the highest probability of being the best basal insulin regimen in terms of reduction in HbA1c. Ranking of the regimens in terms of the SH rate was highly uncertain and no clear conclusion could be made.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first. CONCLUSIONS: iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.

Drug-related problems in cardiac children.

BACKGROUND: A drug-related problem (DRP) may be defined as "an event or circumstance involving drug therapy that actually or potentially interferes with the desired health outcome". Our aim was to determine the frequency and characteristics of DRPs in pediatric patients admitted to a tertiary cardiac care center in the Egyptian capital, Cairo. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study involving review of case notes for children aged 0-18 years, admitted to the medical ward and intensive care unit (ICU), was conducted at a tertiary cardiac care center in Egypt. Data collection took place over a three-month period. Daily reviews of patients' records, medication charts and laboratory data were undertaken by the clinical pharmacists to identify DRPs. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the study (mean age 4.8 years; 53.33% males). Over a three-month period, a total of 313 DRPs were recorded corresponding to an average of 5.22 problems per patient. The most commonly recorded problems related to drug-drug interaction (45.69%), prescribing unnecessary medication (31.95%), under-dosing (21.09%), inappropriate medication (0.96%) and adverse drug reaction (0.32%). Prophylactic antibiotics represented the only unnecessarily prescribed medications. Of the pharmacist suggested interventions, 65% were accepted by the responsible physician. CONCLUSIONS: DRPs occurred frequently during the study period. Drug-drug interactions, drug choice and drug dosing problems represented the majority of the identified DRPs, necessitating targeted prescriber education interventions in these areas. There is a clear need for clinical pharmacists' involvement on the ward level to identify and rectify these frequently occurring and very costly problems.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for active tuberculosis.

Objectives: The continuing spread of tuberculosis (TB) worldwide, especially drug-resistant TB, poses a major challenge to healthcare systems globally. Addressing this requires appraising the cost effectiveness of existing pharmacological interventions against TB to identify key drivers of cost effectiveness and value and guide pharmaceutical innovation and novel drug regimen development. Methods: Studies were identified from a search of six database: MEDLINE MEDLINE-In Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Econlit in July 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed all identified studies and reports using pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Study methodological quality was assessed, data were extracted in standard tables, and results were narratively synthesized. Results: Overall, 991 studies and 53 HTA reports were identified with 20 studies and 3 HTA reports meeting the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment of the 20 studies identified 4 with minor limitations, while the remainder were assessed as having potentially or very serious limitations. Sixteen studies conducted cost-utility analyses, 6 conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, and 2 conducted cost-comparison analyses with some studies performing multiple analyses. The majority (n = 16) were model-based. Eleven studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of bedaquiline, 6 compared shorter to longer/standard duration regimens, 2 assessed ethambutol, and 1 assessed delamanid. Key drivers of cost effectiveness were drug costs, the number of TB cases, the portion of cases with sputum culture conversion, treatment delivery costs, and treatment efficacy. Common value elements considered included adverse events, drug resistance, and improving treatment adherence. Conclusion: Our results suggest that out of the pharmacological treatments assessed, bedaquiline is likely a cost-effective addition to existing treatment regimens/background treatment regimens, while ethambutol is not likely to be. Newer shorter regimens, even if more costly, seem to be more cost-effective compared to longer regimens. These results illustrate the limited number of novel cost-effective pharmacological interventions and highlight a need to develop new drugs/regimens against TB to overcome resistance, taking into account the key drivers of cost effectiveness and other value attributes identified from this review.

Estimating the SF-6Dv1 Value Set for a Population-Based Sample in Lebanon.

OBJECTIVES: The SF-6Dv1 is a preference-based measure derived from the SF-36 for use in quality-adjusted life-year estimation for cost-utility analysis. Country-specific value sets for SF-6Dv1 are needed to reflect societal preferences but none are available for Lebanon and other Arabic countries. This study aimed to generate a value set for SF-6Dv1 for Lebanon and to compare results with the UK set. METHODS: A sample of 249 health states defined by the SF-6Dv1 were valued by a representative sample of 577 members of the Lebanon general population, using standard gamble. Several multivariate regression models at mean and individual level were fitted to estimate utilities for all SF-6Dv1 states with selection of best fitting models based on predictive ability, consistency, and model fit. The best fitting models were compared with those fitted in the UK study. RESULTS: Data from 553 eligible respondents providing 3308 valuations were used for the analysis. Lebanese values were consistently higher than UK values, indicating differences in preferences, and there were no negative values. The random effects model using only main effects was the best performing model. There were inconsistencies in 2 dimensions, thereby consistent models were estimated with values ranging from 0.367 to 1. The results are consistent with the UK results. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the first population-based value set for SF-6Dv1 health states for Lebanon, making it possible to generate quality-adjusted life-years for cost-utility analysis studies. The potential for applications of a standardized utility measure is enormous both in Lebanon and all Arab countries.

Markov modeling for cost-effectiveness using federated health data network.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce 2 R-packages that facilitate conducting health economics research on OMOP-based data networks, aiming to standardize and improve the reproducibility, transparency, and transferability of health economic models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed the software tools and demonstrated their utility by replicating a UK-based heart failure data analysis across 5 different international databases from Estonia, Spain, Serbia, and the United States. RESULTS: We examined treatment trajectories of 47 163 patients. The overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for telemonitoring relative to standard of care was 57 472 €/QALY. Country-specific ICERs were 60 312 €/QALY in Estonia, 58 096 €/QALY in Spain, 40 372 €/QALY in Serbia, and 90 893 €/QALY in the US, which surpassed the established willingness-to-pay thresholds. DISCUSSION: Currently, the cost-effectiveness analysis lacks standard tools, is performed in ad-hoc manner, and relies heavily on published information that might not be specific for local circumstances. Published results often exhibit a narrow focus, central to a single site, and provide only partial decision criteria, limiting their generalizability and comprehensive utility. CONCLUSION: We created 2 R-packages to pioneer cost-effectiveness analysis in OMOP CDM data networks. The first manages state definitions and database interaction, while the second focuses on Markov model learning and profile synthesis. We demonstrated their utility in a multisite heart failure study, comparing telemonitoring and standard care, finding telemonitoring not cost-effective.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations.

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].