A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of different screening strategies for familial hypercholesterolemia.

AIMS: Diagnosis rate of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) remained less than 10 % globally and the economic evaluation results of different FH screening strategies varied. This study aimed to systematically review the methodology and results of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of FH screening, which will provide evidence support for health-related decision-making. METHODS: The Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED) and CEA Registry databases were electronically searched to collect full economic evaluation from the establishment of the databases to June 30, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement 2022 (CHEERS 2022) checklist. RESULTS: Among 232 retrieved studies, 18 economic evaluations were included and all of them are from developed countries, with an average quality score of 0.73. The decision tree model and/or Markov model were constructed by thirteen articles (72 %). Twelve studies (67 %) adopted the healthcare perspective and the lifetime horizon to compare the costs and health outcome of different screening strategies. The results of eight studies indicated that cascade screening was a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening, which was more pronounced in younger adults. Universal screening in young adults aged 16 years or 18-40 years (n=3) and in children aged 1-2 years combined with reverse cascade screening (n=3) are both cost-effective. The probability of being cost-effective for cascade screening (n=6) and universal screening (n=1) of young aged 18-40 years were greater than 95 %. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated the economic advantages of cascade screening, universal screening of young adults, and universal screening of newborns combined with reverse cascade screening. Further health economic evaluation is needed in children and in low- and middle-income countries.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of health utility values among patients with ischemic stroke.

Purpose: Ischemic stroke (IS) has a considerable impact on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. A systematic review was conducted to summarize and synthesize the HRQoL reported from IS patients. Methods: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to February 2022 for studies measuring utility values in IS patients. Basic information about the studies, patient characteristics, measurement of the utility values, and utility values were extracted and summarized. Utility values were pooled according to the time of evaluation, and disease severity was classified with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. The quality of the studies was assessed according to key criteria recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: A total of 39 studies comprising 30,853 participants were included in the study. Measured with EQ-5D-3L, the pooled utility values were 0.42 [95% confidential interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.71], 0.55 (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.68), 0.65 (95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.43 to 0.78), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.74) for patients diagnosed with IS within 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months or above among poststroke patients. Four studies reported utility values classified by mRS scores where synthesized estimates stratified by mRS scores ranged from 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.97) for patients with an mRS score of 1 to-0.04 (95% CI:-0.18 to 0.11) for those with an mRS score of 5. As for the health dimension profiles, usual activity was the most impacted dimension, while self-care was the least impacted one. Conclusion: This study indicated that the utility values in IS patients kept increasing from stroke onset and became relatively stabilized at 6 months poststroke. Health utility values decreased significantly as mRS scores increased. These results facilitate economic evaluations in utility retrieval and selection. Further exploration was required regarding the factors that affect the HRQoL of IS patients.

Exploration of an alternative reconstructed individual patient data-based approach for budget impact analysis of anticancer drugs.

BACKGROUND: The duration of treatment (DOT) of the initial intervention and subsequent treatment is the key to determining the accuracy of anticancer-drug budget impact analysis (BIA) calculations. However, existing studies only use simple assumptions as a proxy for DOT, resulting in a high degree of bias. OBJECTIVES: To enhance the accuracy and reliability of anticancer-drug BIA and solve the problem regarding DOT, we propose an alternative individual patient data (IPD)-based approach that reconstructs IPD from the published Kaplan Meier survival curves to estimate DOT. METHODS: We developed a four-step methodological framework for this new approach, taking the use of pembrolizumab in treating microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced colorectal cancer as an example: (1) reconstructing the IPD; (2) calculating the total DOT of the initial intervention and subsequent treatment for each patient; (3) assigning a randomized time and DOT; and (4) multiple replacement sampling and calculation of the mean value. RESULTS: Using this approach, the average DOT for the initial intervention and subsequent treatment in each year of the BIA time horizon can be calculated and used to calculate the resources consumed and costs in each year. In our example, the average DOT for the initial intervention with pembrolizumab from the first to the fourth year was 4.90, 6.60, 5.24, and 5.06 months, respectively, while the average DOT for subsequent treatment was 0.75, 2.84, 2.99, and 2.50 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The reconstructed IPD-based approach can improve the accuracy and reliability of anticancer-drug BIA compared with conventional methods, and can be widely used, especially for anticancer drugs with excellent efficacy.

The cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab versus regorafenib for treating previously treated unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair colorectal cancer in China.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab versus regorafenib in previously treated unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer in China. Methods: From the perspective of China's health-care system, a Markov model with three health states (progression free, progression, death) was developed for estimating the costs and health outcomes of serplulimab and regorafenib. Data for unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), standard parametric survival analysis, the mixed cure model, and transition probabilities calculation were obtained from clinical trials (ASTRUM-010 and CONCUR). Health-care resource utilization and costs were derived from government-published data and expert interviews. Utilities used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from clinical trials and literature reviews. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY gained. Four scenarios were considered in scenario analysis: (a) using original survival data without conducting MAIC; (b) limiting the time horizon to the follow-up time of the clinical trial of serplulimab; (c) adopting a fourfold increase in the risk of death; and (d) applying utilities from two other sources. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed to assess the uncertainty of the results. Results: In the base-case analysis, serplulimab provided 6.00 QALYs at a cost of $68,722, whereas regorafenib provided 0.69 QALYs at a cost of $40,106. Compared with that for treatment with regorafenib, the ICER for treatment with serplulimab was $5,386/QALY, which was significantly lower than the triple GDP per capita of China in 2021 ($30,036), which was the threshold used to define the cost-effectiveness. In the scenario analysis, the ICERs were $6,369/QALY, $20,613/QALY, $6,037/QALY, $4,783/QALY, and $6,167/QALY, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of serplulimab being cost-effective was 100% at the threshold of $30,036/QALY. Conclusion: Compared with regorafenib, serplulimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with previously treated unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer in China.

Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I2 of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I2 estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.