Surgical prioritization based on decision model outcomes is not sensitive to differences between the health-related quality of life values estimates of physicians and citizens.

PURPOSE: Decision models can be used to support allocation of scarce surgical resources. These models incorporate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) values that can be determined using physician panels. The predominant opinion is that one should use values obtained from citizens. We investigated whether physicians give different HRQoL values to citizens and evaluate whether such differences impact decision model outcomes. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study was conducted. Citizens estimated HRQoL of pre- and post-operative health states for ten surgeries using a visual analogue scale. These values were compared using Bland-Altman analysis with HRQoL values previously obtained from physicians. Impact on decision model outcomes was evaluated by calculating the correlation between the rankings of surgeries established using the physicians' and the citizens' values. RESULTS: A total of 71 citizens estimated HRQoL. Citizens' values on the VAS scale were - 0.07 points (95% CI - 0.12 to - 0.01) lower than the physicians' values. The correlation between the rankings of surgeries based on citizens' and physicians' values was 0.96 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Physicians put higher values on health states than citizens. However, these differences only result in switches between adjacent entries in the ranking. It would seem that HRQoL values obtained from physicians are adequate to inform decision models during crises.

Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieves durable remission in approximately 60% of patients. In relapsed or refractory disease, only about 20% achieve durable remission with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The ZUMA-7 (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel]) and TRANSFORM (lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel]) trials demonstrated superior event-free survival (and, in ZUMA-7, overall survival) in primary-refractory or early-relapsed (high-risk) DLBCL with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) compared with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT; however, list prices for CAR-T exceed $400 000 per infusion. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of second-line CAR-T versus salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT. DESIGN: State-transition microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES: ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, other trials, and observational data. TARGET POPULATION: "High-risk" patients with DLBCL. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector. INTERVENTION: Axi-cel or liso-cel versus ASCT. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200 000 per QALY. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The increase in median overall survival was 4 months for axi-cel and 1 month for liso-cel. For axi-cel, the ICER was $684 225 per QALY and the iNMB was -$107 642. For liso-cel, the ICER was $1 171 909 per QALY and the iNMB was -$102 477. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: To be cost-effective with a WTP of $200 000, the cost of CAR-T would have to be reduced to $321 123 for axi-cel and $313 730 for liso-cel. Implementation in high-risk patients would increase U.S. health care spending by approximately $6.8 billion over a 5-year period. LIMITATION: Differences in preinfusion bridging therapies precluded cross-trial comparisons. CONCLUSION: Neither second-line axi-cel nor liso-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $200 000 per QALY. Clinical outcomes improved incrementally, but costs of CAR-T must be lowered substantially to enable cost-effectiveness. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: No research-specific funding.

Minimising population health loss in times of scarce surgical capacity: a modelling study for surgical procedures performed in nonacademic hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a reduction of available health care capacity for regular care. To guide prioritisation of semielective surgery in times of scarcity, we previously developed a decision model to quantify the expected health loss due to delay of surgery, in an academic hospital setting. The aim of this study is to validate our decision model in a nonacademic setting and include additional elective surgical procedures. METHODS: In this study, we used the previously published three-state cohort state-transition model, to evaluate the health effects of surgery postponement for 28 surgical procedures commonly performed in nonacademic hospitals. Scientific literature and national registries yielded nearly all input parameters, except for the quality of life (QoL) estimates which were obtained from experts using the Delphi method. Two expert panels, one from a single nonacademic hospital and one from different nonacademic hospitals in the Netherlands, were invited to estimate QoL weights. We compared estimated model results (disability adjusted life years (DALY)/month of surgical delay) based on the QoL estimates from the two panels by calculating the mean difference and the correlation between the ranks of the different surgical procedures. The eventual model was based on the combined QoL estimates from both panels. RESULTS: Pacemaker implantation was associated with the most DALY/month of surgical delay (0.054 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.025-0.103) and hemithyreoidectomy with the least DALY/month (0.006 DALY/month, 95% CI: 0.002-0.009). The overall mean difference of QoL estimates between the two panels was 0.005 (95% CI -0.014-0.004). The correlation between ranks was 0.983 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an overview of incurred health loss due to surgical delay for surgeries frequently performed in nonacademic hospitals. The quality of life estimates currently used in our model are robust and validate towards a different group of experts. These results enrich our earlier published results on academic surgeries and contribute to prioritising a more complete set of surgeries.