Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care Interventions: A Review of the Evolution of Methods From 2011 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life care is a driver of increasing healthcare costs; however, palliative care interventions may significantly reduce these costs. Economic evaluations that measure the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) are warranted to inform cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to a comparator and permit evaluation of investment against other therapeutic interventions. Evidence from the literature up to 2011 indicates a scarcity of cost-utility studies in palliative care research. AIM: This literature review evaluates economic studies published between 2011 and 2019 to determine whether the methods of economic evaluations have evolved since 2011. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: A literature search was completed using CENTRAL, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources for publications between 2011 and 2019. Study characteristics, methodology and key findings of publications that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Quality of studies were assessed using indicators developed by authors of the previous literature review. RESULTS: 46 papers were included for qualitative synthesis. Among them only 6 studies conducted formal cost-effectiveness evaluations-of these 5 measured QALYs and 1 employed probabilistic analyses. In addition, with the exception of 1 costing analysis, all other economic evaluations undertook a healthcare payer perspective. Quality of evidence were comparable to the previous literature review published in 2011. CONCLUSION: Despite the small increase in the number of cost-utility studies, the methods of palliative care economic evaluations have not evolved significantly since 2011. More probabilistic cost-utility analyses of palliative care interventions from a societal perspective are necessary to truly evaluate the value for money.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of the novel interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitor guselkumab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has recently been demonstrated in two phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 & -2) but has not been evaluated vs other targeted therapies for PsA. The objective was to compare guselkumab to targeted therapies for PsA for safety and joint and skin efficacy through network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response, mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: Twenty-six phase 3 studies evaluating 13 targeted therapies for PsA were included. For ACR 20 response, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) was comparable to IL-17A inhibitors and subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Similar findings were observed for ACR 50 and 70. For vdH-S score, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other agents except intravenous TNF therapies. Results for PASI 75 and PASI 90 response suggested guselkumab Q8W was better than most other agents. For PASI 100, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other active agents. For AEs and SAEs, guselkumab Q8W ranked highly but comparative conclusions were uncertain. Similar results were observed for all outcomes for guselkumab 100 mg every four weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In this NMA, guselkumab demonstrated favorable arthritis efficacy comparable to IL-17A and subcutaneous TNF inhibitors while offering better PASI response relative to many other treatments.

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. METHODS: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. RESULTS: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta's HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario's reimbursement decision.