Economic Evaluations of Obesity-Targeted Sugar-Sweetened Beverage (SSB) Taxes-A Review to Identify Methodological Issues.

INTRODUCTION: Economic evaluations of public health interventions like sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes face difficulties similar to those previously identified in other public health areas. This stems from challenges in accurately attributing effects, capturing outcomes and costs beyond health, and integrating equity effects. This review examines how these challenges were addressed in economic evaluations of SSB taxes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of SSB taxes focused on addressing obesity in adults, published up to February 2021. The methodological challenges examined include measuring effects, valuing outcomes, assessing costs, and incorporating equity. RESULTS: Fourteen economic evaluations of SSB taxes were identified. Across these evaluations, estimating SSB tax effects was uncertain due to a reliance on indirect evidence that was less robust than evidence from randomised controlled trials. Health outcomes, like quality-adjusted life years, along with a healthcare system perspective for costs, dominated the evaluations of SSB taxes, with a limited focus on broader non-health consequences. Equity analyses were common but employed significantly different approaches and exhibited varying degrees of quality. CONCLUSION: Addressing the methodological challenges remains an issue for economic evaluations of public health interventions like SSB taxes, suggesting the need for increased attention on those issues in future studies. Dedicated methodological guidelines, in particular addressing the measurement of effect and incorporation of equity impacts, are warranted.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single Versus Multifraction SABR for Pulmonary Oligometastases: The SAFRON II Trial.

PURPOSE: The use of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) in advanced cancer care is increasing, yet the cost-effectiveness of single-fraction (SF) versus multifraction (MF) SABR in pulmonary oligometastases is unknown. METHODS: A prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted of the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 13.01 - SAFRON II - randomized trial comparing SF with MF SABR in 87 patients with 133 pulmonary oligometastases. A partitioned survival model assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the within-trial period (4 years) and longer-term (10 years). Costs reflected a societal perspective, expressed in Australian dollars (A$) using 2020 prices and were estimated using patient level data on health care utilization for radiation therapy (including patient time), post-radiation systemic therapy and treatment of adverse effects. Quality of life was assessed using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the cost per QALY gained for SF versus MF SABR, with uncertainty assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: SF cost less than MF for initial therapy (difference of A$1194/patient). Mean time to initiation of systemic drug therapy did not differ between arms (P = .94). Numerical differences in survival favoring SF resulted in greater overall health care use for the within-trial period. The within-trial ICER was A$15,821/QALY and A$23,265/QALY over the longer term. Results were most sensitive to the cost of postprogression therapies and utility values. The sensitivity analysis indicated that SF SABR has a 97% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of A$50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: SF has lower initial costs and is highly likely to be cost-effective. Time to initiation of systemic therapy associated with disease progression is highly patient relevant and is a major driver of cost-effectiveness. Comparisons for SF SABR with nonradiation therapy approaches to the treatment of pulmonary oligometastases warrant further investigation.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis).Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.