ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of studies that generate health state utility values (HSUVs) and the impact of HSUVs on cost-utility analyses make a robust tailored quality appraisal (QA) tool for systematic reviews of these studies necessary. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address conceptual issues regarding QA in systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs by establishing a consensus on the definitions, dimensions and scope of a QA tool specific to this context. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was used in this study. An international multidisciplinary panel of seven experts was purposively assembled. The experts engaged in two anonymous online survey rounds. After each round, the experts received structured and controlled feedback on the previous phase. Controlled feedback allowed the experts to re-evaluate and adjust their positions based on collective insights. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The response rates to the first-round and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100%, 86% and 71%, respectively. The entire process culminated in a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions-reporting, relevance and methodological quality-and the scope of a QA tool specific to studies that elicit HSUVs. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving this consensus marks a pivotal step towards developing a QA tool specific to systematic reviews of studies eliciting HSUVs. Future research will build on this foundation, identify QA items, signalling questions and response options, and develop a QA tool specific to studies eliciting HSUVs.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer represents the most prevalent cancer among Swedish women. Although considerable research has investigated the cost-effectiveness of emerging innovative medical treatments for breast cancer, studies addressing existing surgical procedures remain scant. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three surgical procedures for in situ breast cancer treatment in Sweden: mastectomy, lumpectomy without irradiation, and lumpectomy with irradiation. METHODS: A six-state Markov model with a 30-year time horizon was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the three alternatives. Transition probabilities were based on a targeted literature review focusing on available evidence in Sweden and comparable contexts. Costs were estimated from both healthcare and societal perspectives, using patient data from the Swedish National Cancer Registry in 2020 (Cancerregistret). Health outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and health outcomes were then summarised into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between competing strategies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to address the uncertainties in the input parameters. RESULTS: The results showed that compared to lumpectomy without irradiation, lumpectomy with irradiation yielded a "moderate" ICER per QALY gained of 402,994 Swedish Krona (SEK) from a healthcare perspective and a "high" ICER of 575,833 SEK from a societal perspective. Mastectomy proved to be the costliest and least effective of the three alternatives over a 30-year period. The PSA results further substantiated these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that lumpectomy with irradiation is "moderately" cost-effective compared with lumpectomy without irradiation. Nevertheless, extending this study by conducting a comprehensive budget impact analysis to account for the prevalence of in situ breast cancer in Sweden is prudent. These results imply that a costlier and less effective mastectomy should only be considered when lumpectomy options are infeasible. Further studies are needed to obtain more reliable parameters relevant to Sweden and to increase the consistency of the findings.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an essential input parameter to cost-utility analysis (CUA). Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) provide summarized information for selecting utility values from an increasing number of primary studies eliciting HSUVs. Quality appraisal (QA) of such SLRs is an important process towards the credibility of HSUVs estimates; yet, authors often overlook this crucial process. A scientifically developed and widely accepted QA tool for this purpose is lacking and warranted. OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively describe the nature of QA in published SRLs of studies eliciting HSUVs and generate a list of commonly used items. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase from 01.01.2015 to 15.05.2021. SLRs of empirical studies eliciting HSUVs that were published in English were included. We extracted descriptive data, which included QA tools checklists or good practice recommendations used or cited, items used, and the methods of incorporating QA results into study findings. Descriptive statistics (frequencies of use and occurrences of items, acceptance and counterfactual acceptance rates) were computed and a comprehensive list of QA items was generated. RESULTS: A total of 73 SLRs were included, comprising 93 items and 35 QA tools and good recommendation practices. The prevalence of QA was 55% (40/73). Recommendations by NICE and ISPOR guidelines appeared in 42% (16/40) of the SLRs that appraised quality. The most commonly used QA items in SLRs were response rates (27/40), statistical analysis (22/40), sample size (21/40) and loss of follow up (21/40). Yet, the most commonly featured items in QA tools and GPRs were statistical analysis (23/35), confounding or baseline equivalency (20/35), and blinding (14/35). Only 5% of the SLRS used QA to inform the data analysis, with acceptance rates of 100% (in two studies) 67%, 53% and 33%. The mean counterfactual acceptance rate was 55% (median 53% and IQR 56%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerably low prevalence of QA in the SLRs of HSUVs. Also, there is a wide variation in the QA dimensions and items included in both SLRs and extracted tools. This underscores the need for a scientifically developed QA tool for multi-variable primary studies of HSUVs.
Subject(s)
Research Design , Humans , Cost-Benefit AnalysisABSTRACT
To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.
