The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Early palliative intervention in septic patients reduces healthcare utilization.

INTRODUCTION: While the role of palliative care in the emergency department is recognized, barriers against the effective integration of palliative interventions and emergency care remain. We examined the association between goals-of-care and palliative care consultations and healthcare utilization outcomes in older adult patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with sepsis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 197 patients aged 65 years and older who presented to the ED with sepsis or septic shock. Healthcare utilization outcomes were compared between patients divided into 3 groups: no palliative care consultation, palliative care consultation within 4 days of admission (i.e., early consultation), and palliative care consultation after 4 days of admission (i.e., late consultation). RESULTS: 51% of patients did not receive any palliative consultation, 39% of patients underwent an early palliative care consultation (within 4 days), and 10% of patients underwent a late palliative care consultation (after 4 days). Patients who received late palliative care consultation had a significantly increased number of procedures, total length of stay, ICU length of stay, and cost (p < .01, p < .001, p < .05, p < .001; respectively). Regarding early palliative care consultation, there were no statistically significant associations between this intervention and our outcomes of interest; however, we noted a trend towards decreased total length of stay and decreased healthcare cost. CONCLUSION: In patients aged 65 years and older who presented to the ED with sepsis, early palliative consultations were associated with reduced healthcare utilization as compared to late palliative consultations.

Cost-utility analysis of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Aging population and other factors have led to a rapid rise in cancer incidence in China. However, under the influence of traditional perception of diseases, deaths and economic factors, many patients who are unresponsive to radical treatment are still adherent to excessive and unnecessary treatment, which may lead to poor quality of life (QoL) and increase unnecessary medical burden. AIM: Compare the difference of the quality of life and cost-utility value between patients who received palliative care (PC) and patients who were adherent to conventional anticancer treatment (CAT) and provides empirical evidence of clinical and economic value for hospital-based PC. METHODS: Chinese Quality of Life Questionnaire (CQLQ) Scale was used to collect advanced cancer patients' QoL on admission and discharge days. Paired and independent samples' statistical analysis were used to compare inter- and intra- QoL between PC and CAT group. Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process were used to weight QoL scores and converted the QoL to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Propensity Score Matching (PSM) for 1:1 was used to compare average hospitalization expenses between two groups. The expense per QALYs was used for Cost-Utility analysis between the two treatments. RESULTS: A total of 248 hospitalized patients diagnosed with metastatic disease at stage IV were recruited from West China Fourth Hospital between January 2018 and August 2018, including 128 patients receiving PC and 120 patients receiving CAT. Although both treatments had positive effects on improving QoL for patients, the QoL in the PC group were significantly higher than that in the CAT group (55.90 ± 18.80 vs 24.00 ± 8.60, t = 7.51, p < 0.05). The QALY (days) of pre- and post- treatment increased by 55.9 and 24.0 days in PC and CAT group respectively. Compared average hospitalization expense in 613 pairs of advanced cancer inpatients after PSM 1:1, the per capita expense of PC group was higher (13,743.5 ± 11,574.1 vs 11,689.0 ± 8876.8, t = 3.44, p < 0.05), while each unit of QALYs paid by PC group was only 50% of that paid by those receiving CAT. CONCLUSIONS: PC played a positive role in improving the QoL for patients diagnosed with advanced cancer and alleviating economic burdens of both patient families and the society from the viewpoint of cost-utility. Our findings imply that PC should be recognized as a proactive care model in China that helps patients with some terminal diseases.

Direct costs of antineoplastic and supportive treatment for progressive multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system.

Aim: To estimate current real-world costs of drugs and supportive care for the treatment of multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system. Methods: Forty-one patients were included from a personalized medicine study (2016-2019). Detailed information was collected from patient journals and hospital registries to estimate the total and mean costs using inverse probability weighting of censored data. Results: Total observed (censored) costs for the 41 patients was €8.84 million during 125 treatment years, with antineoplastic drugs as the main cost driver (€5.6 million). Individual costs showed large variations. Mean 3-year cost per patient from first progression was €182,103 (€131,800-232,405). Conclusion: Prediction of real-world costs is hindered by the availability of detailed costing data. Micro-costing analyses are needed for budgeting and real-world evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

Lay abstract In recent years, there has been a dramatic improvement in the treatment of multiple myeloma due to the introduction of new drugs. These drugs have significantly increased survival but have also had an immense impact on healthcare budgets. In this study, we used detailed treatment information for multiple myeloma patients in combination with billing data from the hospital pharmacy at a Danish hospital to calculate individual cost histories for both drugs and supportive care. Using these data, we estimated the mean 3-year cost of a multiple myeloma patient to be €182.103, but we also found large variation between patients, causing an uncertainty of €50.000 in either direction. We believe that detailed costing studies, similar to the present one, are necessary for evaluation of cost-effectiveness of drugs in clinical practice.

Organizational Strategies for Providing Cancer Palliative Care to Many.

PURPOSE: Hospitals and healthcare organizations are today operating in an extremely competitive environment, with increasing pressure to improve quality while reducing costs. In responding to this dynamic situation, transformation of any organization requires the will to organize delivery around the needs of patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Providing palliative care to the many who require it needs the value agenda to be formulated based on mutually reinforcing components. Here we present an overview of the framework for a palliative care department in a comprehensive cancer center, which includes different levels that are embedded within a comprehensive system. Detailed information on each level is presented, followed by a discussion of quality of care, as an integrating theme for the framework. The chapter concludes by detailing the benefits that a comprehensive cancer palliative care center provides to a country's healthcare efforts through service, education, research, and advocacy.

Factors Associated With Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Lung Cancer Patients and Associated Costs of Care.

BACKGROUND: Results of previous studies demonstrated that high-intensity end-of-life (EOL) care improves neither cancer patients' survival nor quality of life. Our objective was to assess the incidence of and factors associated with aggressiveness of care during the last 30 days of life (DOL) of lung cancer (LC) patients and the impacts of aggressiveness of care in EOL-care costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using French national hospital database, all patients with LC who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, or between January 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016, were included. EOL-care aggressiveness was assessed using the following criteria: chemotherapy administered within the last 14 DOL; more than one hospitalization within the last 30 DOL; admission to the intensive care unit within the last 30 DOL; and palliative care initiated < 3 days before death. Expenditures were limited to direct costs, from a health care payer's perspective. RESULTS: Among 79,746 adult LC patients identified; 57% had at least one indicator of EOL-care aggressiveness (49% repeated hospitalizations, 12% intensive care unit admissions, 9% chemotherapy, 5% palliative care). It increased significantly between the 2 periods (56% vs. 58%, P < .001). Young age, male sex, shorter time since diagnosis, comorbidities, no malnutrition, type of care facility other than general hospital, social deprivation, and low-density population were independently associated with having one or more indicator of aggressive EOL care. The mean EOL cost was €8152 ± 5117 per patient, but the cost was significantly higher for patients with at least one EOL-care aggressiveness criterion (€9480 vs. €6376, P < .001). CONCLUSION: In France, a majority of LC patients had at least one criterion of aggressive EOL care that had a major economic impact on the health care system.

Cost-effectiveness of palliative emergent surgery versus endoscopic stenting for acute malignant colonic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stenting has demonstrated value over emergent surgery as a palliative intervention for patients with acute large bowel obstruction due to advanced colorectal cancer. However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates and the risk of perforation have brought into question its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who present with acute large bowel obstruction. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement and emergent surgery. Costs were derived from medicare reimbursement rates (US$), while effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The model was tested for validation using one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $43,798.06 and 0.68 QALYs. Emergent surgery cost $5865.30 more, while only yielding 0.58 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER of - $58,653.00, indicating that SEMS placement is the dominant strategy. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that emergent surgery would require an improved survival rate in comparison to endoscopic stenting to become the favored treatment modality. In 100,000 probabilistic simulations, endoscopic stenting was favored 96.3% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute colonic obstruction in the presence of unresectable or metastatic disease, endoscopic stenting is a more cost-effective palliative intervention than emergent surgery. This recommendation would favor surgery over SEMS placement with improved surgical survival, or if the majority of patients undergoing stenting required reintervention.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Intensity of Care, Expenditure, and Place of Death in French Women in the Year Before Their Death From Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

Health care utilization of women with breast cancer (BC) during the last year of life, together with the causes and place of death and associated expenditure have been poorly described. Women treated for BC (2014-2015) with BC as a cause of death in 2015 and covered by the national health insurance general scheme (77% of the population) were identified in the French health data system (n = 6,696, mean age: 68.7 years, SD ± 15). Almost 70% died in short-stay hospitals (SSH), 4% in hospital-at-home (HaH), 9% in Rehab, 5% in skilled nursing homes (SNH) and 12% at home. One-third presented cardiovascular comorbidity. During the last year, 90% were hospitalized at least once in SSH, 25% in Rehab, 13% in HaH and 71% received hospital palliative care (HPC), but only 5% prior to their end-of-life stay. During the last month, 85% of women were admitted at least once to a SSH, 42% via the emergency department, 10% to an ICU, 24% received inpatient chemotherapy and 18% received outpatient chemotherapy. Among the 83% of women who died in hospital, independent factors for HPC use were cardiovascular comorbidity (adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.72-0.95) and, in the 30 days before death, at least one SNH stay (aOR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.36-0.76), ICU stay (aOR: 0.36; 95%CI: 0.30-0.43), inpatient chemotherapy (aOR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.48-0.63), outpatient chemotherapy (aOR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.51-0.70), death in Rehab (aOR: 1.4; 95%CI: 1.05-1.86) or HAH (aOR: 4.5; 95%CI: 2.47-8.1) vs SSH. Overall mean expenditure reimbursed per woman was €38,734 and €42,209 for those with PC. Women with inpatient or outpatient chemotherapy during the last month had lower rates of HPC, suggesting declining use of HPC before death. This study also indicates SSH-centered management with increased use of HPC in HaH and Rehab units and decreased access to HPC in SNH.

Associations between informal care costs, care quality, carer rewards, burden and subsequent grief: the international, access, rights and empowerment mortality follow-back study of the last 3 months of life (IARE I study).

BACKGROUND: At the end of life, formal care costs are high. Informal care (IC) costs, and their effects on outcomes, are not known. This study aimed to determine the IC costs for older adults in the last 3 months of life, and their relationships with outcomes, adjusting for care quality. METHODS: Mortality follow-back postal survey. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the USA (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers (ICrs) of decedents who had received palliative care. DATA: ICrs reported hours and activities, care quality, positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and completed the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG). ANALYSIS: All costs (formal, informal) were calculated by multiplying reported hours of activities by country-specific costs for that activity. IC costs used country-specific shadow prices, e.g. average hourly wages and unit costs for nursing care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored the association of potential explanatory variables, including IC costs and care quality, on three outcomes: positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and subsequent grief. RESULTS: We received 767 completed surveys, 245 from London, 282 Dublin, 131 New York and 109 San Francisco. Most respondents were women (70%); average age was 60 years. On average, patients received 66-76 h per week from ICrs for 'being on call', 52-55 h for ICrs being with them, 19-21 h for personal care, 17-21 h for household tasks, 15-18 h for medical procedures and 7-10 h for appointments. Mean (SD) IC costs were as follows: USA $32,468 (28,578), England $36,170 (31,104) and Ireland $43,760 (36,930). IC costs accounted for 58% of total (formal plus informal) costs. Higher IC costs were associated with less grief and more positive perspectives of caregiving. Poor home care was associated with greater caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Costs to informal carers are larger than those to formal care services for people in the last three months of life. If well supported ICrs can play a role in providing care, and this can be done without detriment to them, providing that they are helped. Improving community palliative care and informal carer support should be a focus for future investment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialised palliative care at home for patients and their caregivers: the DOMUS trial.

BACKGROUND: While hospitals remain the most common place of death in many western countries, specialised palliative care (SPC) at home is an alternative to improve the quality of life for patients with incurable cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a systematic fast-track transition process from oncological treatment to SPC enriched with a psychological intervention at home for patients with incurable cancer and their caregivers. METHODS: A full economic evaluation with a time horizon of six months was performed from a societal perspective within a randomised controlled trial, the DOMUS trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01885637). The primary outcome of the health economic analysis was a incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is obtained by comparing costs required per gain in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). The costs included primary and secondary healthcare costs, cost of intervention and informal care from caregivers. Public transfers were analysed in seperate analysis. QALYs were measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 for patients and SF-36 for caregivers. Bootstrap simulations were performed to obtain the ICER estimate. RESULTS: In total, 321 patients (162 in intervention group, 159 in control group) and 235 caregivers (126 in intervention group, 109 in control group) completed the study. The intervention resulted in significantly higher QALYs for patients when compared to usual care (p-value = 0.026), while being more expensive as well. In the 6 months observation period, the average incremental cost of intervention compared to usual care was €2015 per patient (p value < 0.000). The mean incremental gain was 0.01678 QALY (p-value = 0.026). Thereby, the ICER was €118,292/QALY when adjusting for baseline costs and quality of life. For the caregivers, we found no significant differences in QALYs between the intervention and control group (p-value = 0.630). At a willingness to pay of €80,000 per QALY, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective lies at 15% in the base case scenario. CONCLUSION: This model of fast-track SPC enriched with a psychological intervention yields better QALYs than usual care with a large increase in costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered 25.6.2013. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01885637 .

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Exploring the costs, consequences and efficiency of three types of palliative care day services in the UK: a pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative Care Day Services (PCDS) offer supportive care to people with advanced, progressive illness who may be approaching the end of life. Despite the growth of PCDS in recent years, evidence of their costs and effects is scarce. It is important to establish the value of such services so that health and care decision-makers can make evidence-based resource allocation decisions. This study examines and estimates the costs and effects of PCDS with different service configurations in three centres across the UK in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. METHODS: People who had been referred to PCDS were recruited between June 2017 and September 2018. A pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study design analysed data on costs and outcomes. Data on costs were collected on health and care use in the 4 weeks preceding PCDS attendance using adapted versions of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). Outcomes, cost per attendee/day and volunteer contribution to PCDS were also estimated. Outcomes included quality of life (MQOL-E), health status (EQ-5D-5L) and capability wellbeing (ICECAP-SCM). RESULTS: Thirty-eight attendees were recruited and provided data at baseline and 4 weeks (centre 1: n = 8; centre 2: n = 8, centre 3: n = 22). The cost per attendee/day ranged from £121-£190 (excluding volunteer contribution) to £172-£264 (including volunteer contribution) across the three sites. Volunteering constituted between 28 and 38% of the total cost of PCDS provision. There was no significant mean change at 4 week follow-up from baseline for health and care costs (centre 1: £570, centre 2: -£1127, centre 3: £65), or outcomes: MQOL-E (centre 1: - 0.48, centre 2: 0.01, centre 3: 0.24); EQ-5D-5L (centre 1: 0.05, centre 2: 0.03, centre 3: - 0.03) and ICECAP-SCM (centre 1:0.00, centre 2: - 0.01, centre 3: 0.03). Centre costs variation is almost double per attendee when attendance rates are held constant in scenario analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the contribution made by volunteers to PCDS provision. There is insufficient evidence on whether outcomes improved, or costs were reduced, in the three different service configurations for PCDS. We suggest how future research may overcome some of the challenges we encountered, to better address questions of cost-effectiveness in PCDS.

QALY-time: experts' view on the use of the quality-adjusted LIFE year in COST-effectiveness analysis in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) is internationally recognized as standard metric of health outcomes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in healthcare. The ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care has been recently mapped in a review. The aim was to report on and draw conclusions from two expert meetings that reflected on earlier mapped issues in order to reach consensus, and to advise on the QALY's future use in palliative care. METHODS: A nominal group approach was used. In order to facilitate group decision making, three statements regarding the use of the QALY in palliative care were discussed in a structured way. Two groups of international policymakers, healthcare professionals and researchers participated. Data were analysed qualitatively using inductive coding. RESULTS: 1) Most experts agreed that the recommended measurement tool for the QALYs 'Q' component, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), is inappropriate for palliative care. A more sensitive tool, which might be based on the capabilities approach, could be used or developed. 2) Valuation of time should be incorporated in the 'Q' part, leaving the linear clock time in the 'LY' component. 3) Most experts agreed that the QALY, in its current shape, is not suitable for palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Although the EQ-5D does not suffice, a generic tool is needed for the QALY. As long as no suitable alternative is available, other tools can be used besides or serve as basis for the EQ-5D because of issues in conceptual overlap. 2) Future research should further investigate the valuation of time issue, and how best to integrate it in the 'Q' component. 3) A generic outcome measure of effectiveness is essential to justly allocate healthcare resources. However, experts emphasized, the QALY is and should be one of multiple criteria for choices in the healthcare insurance package.

Cost Effectiveness of External Beam Radiation Therapy versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Cryoablation for Palliation of Uncomplicated Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of incorporating cryoablation in the treatment regimens for uncomplicated bone metastases using radiation therapy (RT) in single-fraction RT (SFRT) or multiple-fraction RT (MFRT) regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed using 1-month cycles over a lifetime horizon to compare the cost effectiveness of multiple strategies, including RT followed by RT (RT-RT) for recurrent pain, RT followed by cryoablation (RT-ablation), and cryoablation followed by RT (ablation-RT). RT-RT consisted of 8 Gy in 1 fraction/8 Gy in 1 fraction (SFRT-SFRT) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions/20 Gy in 5 fractions (MFRT-MFRT). Probabilities and utilities were extracted from a search of the medical literature. Costs were calculated from a payer perspective using 2017 Medicare reimbursement in an outpatient setting. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using strategies evaluated for willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). To account for model uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, SFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to SFRT-SFRT at $96,387/QALY. MFRT-ablation was cost effective relative to MFRT-MFRT at $85,576/QALY. Ablation-SFRT and ablation-MFRT were not cost effective with ICERs >$100,000/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, results were highly sensitive to variation in multiple model parameters, including median survival (base: 9 months), with SFRT-SFRT favored at median survival ≤8.7 months. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis examining SFRT-based regimens showed that SFRT-ablation was preferred in 36.9% of simulations at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Cryoablation is a potentially cost-effective alternative to reirradiation with RT for recurrent of pain following RT; however, no strategy incorporating initial cryoablation was cost effective.

Development of a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There has been no comprehensive study determining the financial burden of breast cancer in the South African (SA) public sector. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy per episode of care and to quantify the associated costs relating to chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH), a government hospital in SA. These costs included costs associated with the management of adverse events arising from chemotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective patient-level data were collected for 200 patients from electronic databases and patient folders between 2013 and 2015. Direct medical costs were determined from the health funder's perspective. The information collected was categorised into the following cost components: chemotherapy medicines, support medicines, administration of chemotherapy, laboratory tests, radiology scans and imaging, doctor consultations and adverse events. Time-and-motion studies were conducted on a set of new patients and the data obtained were used for the study sample of 200 patients. All the above costs were used to determine the cost of chemotherapy per episode of care. The episode of care was defined as the care provided from 2 months prior to the date of commencing chemotherapy (pre-chemotherapy phase), during chemotherapy (treatment phase) and until 6 months after the date when the last cycle of chemotherapy was administered (follow-up phase). RESULTS: A method was developed to determine the episode-of-care costs for breast cancer at GSH. The total direct medical cost for treatment of breast cancer at GSH for 200 patients was ZAR3 154 877, and the average episode-of-care cost per patient was ZAR15 774. The average cost of management of adverse events arising from the various treatment modalities was ZAR13 133 per patient. It was found that the cost of treating a patient with adverse events was 1.8 times higher than the cost of treating a patient without adverse events. Of the patients, 86.5% managed to complete their prescribed chemotherapy treatment cycles, and the average cost of treatment of these patients was 1.3 times more than the average cost for patients who could not complete their treatment, based on the number of treatment cycles received. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive method to determine the costs associated with breast cancer management per episode of care was developed, and costs were quantified at GSH according to the treatment protocol used at the hospital.

Health Economic and Health Service Issues of Palliative Radiotherapy.

Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) makes up about half of all courses delivered in radiotherapy departments. It is effective in the management of common complications of cancer and is relatively inexpensive. About one third of cancer patients receive PRT within the last 2 years of life. One quarter of all patients who receive radiotherapy will undergo a second or subsequent course, mostly for palliative indications. There is considerable variation in practice, both within and between jurisdictions. This has been attributed to inconsistencies in guidelines, physician variation and differing financial incentives. Because of the widespread use of hypofractionation, variation in PRT fractionation has a lower effect on departmental capacity than variation in radical and adjuvant treatments. Excessive fractionation places an unnecessary burden on frail patients at the end of their lives and uses scarce healthcare resources. With appropriate case selection, the increased cost of fractionation or more conformal treatments can be justified where clinical benefit is expected.