Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative screening strategies for the detection of cervical cancer among women in rural areas of Western Kenya.

While the incidence of cervical cancer has dropped in high-income countries due to organized cytology-based screening programs, it remains the leading cause of cancer death among women in Eastern Africa. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) now urges providers to transition from widely prevalent but low-performance visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screening to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing. Due to high HPV prevalence, effective triage tests are needed to identify those lesions likely to progress and so avoid over-treatment. To identify the optimal cost-effective strategy, we compared the VIA screen-and-treat approach to primary HPV DNA testing with p16/Ki67 dual-stain cytology or VIA as triage. We used a Markov model to calculate the budget impact of each strategy with incremental quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) as the main outcome. Deterministic cost-effectiveness analyses show that the screen-and-treat approach is highly cost-effective (ICER 2469 Int$), while screen, triage, and treat with dual staining is the most effective with favorable ICER than triage with VIA (ICER 9943 Int$ compared with 13,177 Int$). One-way sensitivity analyses show that the results are most sensitive to discounting, VIA performance, and test prices. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the triage option using dual stain is the optimal choice above a willingness to pay threshold of 7115 Int$ being cost-effective as per WHO standards. The result of our analysis favors the use of dual staining over VIA as triage in HPV-positive women and portends future opportunities and necessary research to improve the coverage and acceptability of cervical cancer screening programs.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Digital Health Technology for Improving the Uptake of Vaccination Programs: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective strategy to prevent infectious diseases, yet vaccination coverage has not reached the target level. To promote vaccination uptake, digital health interventions (DHIs) have been used in various vaccination programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs for the improvement of the uptake of vaccination programs. METHODS: A literature review was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost), Center for Review and Dissemination, and Institute for IEEE Xplore up to October 2022. Health economic evaluations that met the following inclusion criteria were included: (1) adult or pediatric vaccination programs; (2) interventions delivered through digital technology; (3) full-scale health economic analyses including cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, or cost-consequence analyses; and (4) evaluations conducted by model-based or trial-based analyses. The quality of each included study was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). RESULTS: The systematic review included 7 studies. Four of the cost-effectiveness studies were conducted by model-based analyses, and 3 were trial-based analyses. One study reported the additional cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, whereas 6 studies reported the additional cost per individual vaccinated (or return case). The vaccines targeted the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, influenza vaccination, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, and children immunization at different ages. The DHIs were delivered by television campaign, web-based decision aid, SMS text message, telephone, and computer-generated recall letters. The studies were classified as very good (n=5) and good (n=2) qualities. One study concluded that the DHI was cost-saving, and 6 studies concluded that the DHI was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first systematic review on cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs to improve vaccination uptake. All included studies have good to very good quality on study assessment and reported the DHIs to be cost-saving or cost-effective in the improvement of vaccination uptake.

Cost-Effectiveness of Midazolam Versus Haloperidol Versus Olanzapine for the Management of Acute Agitation in the Accident and Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in Hong Kong Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments concluded that intramuscular (IM) olanzapine is noninferior to haloperidol and midazolam, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the management of acutely agitated patients in A&E setting. Determining their comparative cost-effectiveness will further provide an economic perspective to inform the choice of sedative in this setting. METHODS: This analysis used data from a randomized clinical trial conducted in Hong Kong A&E departments between December 2014 and September 2019. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the 3 sedatives was conducted, from the A&E perspective and a within-trial time horizon, using a decision-analytic model. Sensitivity analyses were also undertaken. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, median total management costs associated with IM midazolam, haloperidol, and olanzapine were Hong Kong dollar (HKD) 1958.9 (US dollar [USD] 251.1), HKD 2504.5 (USD 321.1), and HKD 2467.6 (USD 316.4), respectively. Agitation management labor cost was the main cost driver, whereas drug costs contributed the least. Midazolam dominated over haloperidol and olanzapine. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported that midazolam remains dominant > 95% of the time and revealed no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of IM olanzapine versus haloperidol (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 667.16; 95% confidence interval -770.89, 685.90). CONCLUSIONS: IM midazolam is the dominant cost-effective treatment for the management of acute agitation in the A&E setting. IM olanzapine could be considered as an alternative to IM haloperidol given that there is no clear difference in cost-effectiveness, and their adverse effect profile should be considered when choosing between them.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 'test and treat' policy for antiretroviral therapy among heterosexual HIV population in India.

Background & objectives: The World Health Organisation recommended immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in all adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients regardless of their CD4 cell count. This study was undertaken to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of implementation of these guidelines in India. Methods: A Markov model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and health outcomes of three scenarios for initiation of ART treatment at varying CD4 cell count <350/mm[3], <500/mm[3] and test and treat using health system perspective using life-time horizon. A few input parameters for this model namely, transition probabilities from one stage to another stage of HIV and incidence rates of TB were calculated from the data of Centre of Excellence for HIV treatment and care, Chandigarh; whereas, other parameters were obtained from the published literature. Total HIV-related deaths averted, HIV infections averted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Result: Test and treat intervention slowed down the progression of disease and averted 18,386 HIV-related deaths, over lifetime horizon. It also averted 16,105 new HIV infections and saved 343,172 QALYs as compared to the strategy of starting ART at CD4 cell count of 500/mm[3]. Incremental cost per QALY gained for the immediate initiation of ART as compared to ART at CD4 cell count of 500/mm[3] and 350/mm[3] was ₹ 46,599 and 80,050, respectively at reported rates of adherence to the therapy. Interpretation & conclusions: Immediate ART (test and treat) is highly cost-effective strategy over the past criteria of delayed therapy in India. Cost-effectiveness of this policy is largely because of reduction in the transmission of HIV.

10 Years of End-of-Life Criteria in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: In January 2009, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence introduced supplementary guidance for end-of-life (EoL) treatments, which allowed treatments with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the regular threshold (£20 000-£30 000) to be recommended, if they satisfied the EoL criteria. The aims of this study were (1) to systematically review 10 years of EoL supplementary guidance implementation and explore how it could be improved, and (2) to create a framework for incorporating the uncertainty relating to EoL criteria satisfaction into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for decision making. METHODS: All appraisals between January 2009 and 2019 were screened for EoL discussions. Data were extracted on the EoL criteria and cost-effectiveness assessment details. Additionally, a quantitative method was developed to include the EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses. A stylized example was created to provide a case study for the inclusion of EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty. RESULTS: An EoL discussion was identified in 35% of appraisals, 57% of which led to a positive EoL decision. Only 5.7% of technologies with positive EoL decisions were not recommended, versus 43.8% of technologies with negative EoL decisions. EoL criteria assessment was often reported insufficiently and evaluated inconsistently and nontransparently. A total of 54.9% of EoL decisions were made while at least 1 criterion was surrounded by considerable uncertainty. By applying the proposed quantitative method, this EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty was accounted for in decision making. The stylized example demonstrated that the impact of EoL criteria satisfaction uncertainty can be substantial enough to reverse the reimbursement decision. CONCLUSIONS: To improve consistency/transparency and correct reimbursement decisions' likelihood, new guidelines on the implementation of the EoL criteria are needed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Providing the Depression Care for People With Cancer Program to Patients With Prostate Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The Depression Care for People with Cancer program (DCPC) is a cost-effective depression care model for UK patients with cancer. However, DCPC's cost-effectiveness in the United States is unknown, particularly for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. This study evaluates the health and economic impact of providing DCPC to patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: DCPC was compared with usual care in a mathematical model that simulates depression and its outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC was modeled as a sequential combination of universal depression screening, post-screening evaluations, and first-line combination therapy. Primary outcomes were lifetime direct costs of depression care, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included life expectancy, number of depression-free months and lifetime depressive episodes, duration of depressive episodes, cumulative incidence of depression, lifetime depression diagnoses/misdiagnoses, and the cumulative incidence of maintenance therapy for depression. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, DCPC dominated usual care by offering 0.11 more QALYs for $2500 less per patient (from averted misdiagnoses). DCPC also offered 5 extra depression-free months, shorter depressive episodes, and a lower chance of maintenance therapy. DCPC's trade-offs were a higher cumulative incidence of depression and more lifetime depressive episodes. Life expectancy was identical under usual care and DCPC. Sensitivity analyses indicate that DCPC was almost always preferable to usual care. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, DCPC may offer more value to US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC should be considered for inclusion in prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.

A generic approach to evaluate costs and effectiveness of agricultural Beneficial Management Practices to improve water quality management.

Nutrient export from agricultural areas is among the main contributors to water pollution in various watersheds. Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) are commonly used to reduce excessive nutrient runoff and improve water quality. The successful uptake of BMPs not only depends on their effectiveness but also on their costs of implementation. This study conducts a set of cost-effectiveness analyses to help stakeholders identify their preferred combinations of BMPs in the Qu'Appelle River Basin, a typical watershed in the Canadian Prairies. The considered BMPs are related to cattle and cropping farms and are initially selected by agricultural producers in this region. The analyses use a water quality model to estimate the impact of implementing BMPs on nutrient export, and the cost estimation model to approximate the cost of implementing BMPs at tributary and watershed scales. Our results show that BMPs' effectiveness, total costs of implementation and costs per kilogram of nutrient abatement vary between tributaries. However, wetland conservation is among the optimal practices to improve water quality across the watershed. It is also found that the rates of BMP adoption by stakeholders can influence the effectiveness of practices in a large watershed scale, which highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement in water quality management. This type of analyses can help stakeholders choose single or a combination of BMPs according to their available budget and acceptable levels of reduction in nutrients.

Protocol of a randomized open label multicentre trial comparing continuous intrajejunal levodopa infusion with deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease - the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study.

BACKGROUND: Both Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) and Continuous intrajejunal Levodopa Infusion (CLI) are effective therapies for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). To our knowledge, no direct head-to-head comparison of DBS and CLI has been performed, whilst the costs probably differ significantly. In the INfusion VErsus STimulation (INVEST) study, costs and effectiveness of DBS and CLI are compared in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients with PD, to study whether higher costs of one of the therapies are justified by superiority of that treatment. METHODS: A prospective open label multicentre RCT is being performed, with ancillary patient preference observational arms. Patients with PD who, despite optimal pharmacological treatment, have severe response fluctuations, bradykinesia, dyskinesias, or painful dystonia are eligible for inclusion. A total of 66 patients will be randomized. There is no minimal inclusion in the patient preference arms. The primary health economic outcomes are costs per unit on the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) and costs per unit Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) at 12 months. The main clinical outcome is patient-reported quality of life measured with the PDQ-39 at 12 months. Patients will additionally be followed during 36 months after initiation of the study treatment. DISCUSSION: The INVEST trial directly compares the costs and effectiveness of the advanced therapies DBS and CLI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register identifier 4753, registered November 3rd, 2014; EudraCT number 2014-001501-32, Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02480803.

Cost-effectiveness of option B+ in prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Yunnan Province, China.

BACKGROUND: Although Option B+ may be more costly than Options B, it may provide additional health benefits that are currently unclear in Yunnan province. We created deterministic models to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Option B+. METHODS: Data were used in two deterministic models simulating a cohort of 2000 HIV+ pregnant women. A decision tree model simulated the number of averted infants infections and QALY acquired for infants in the PMTCT period for Options B and B+. The minimum cost was calculated. A Markov decision model simulated the number of maternal life year gained and serodiscordant partner infections averted in the ten years after PMTCT for Option B or B+. ICER per life year gained was calculated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: If fully implemented, Option B and Option B+ averted 1016.85 infections and acquired 588,01.02 QALYs.The cost of Option B was US$1,229,338.47, the cost of Option B+ was 1,176,128.63. However, when Options B and B+ were compared over ten years, Option B+ not only improved mothers'ten-year survival from 69.7 to 89.2%, saving more than 3890 life-years, but also averted 3068 HIV infections between serodiscordant partners. Option B+ yielded a favourable ICER of $32.99per QALY acquired in infants and $5149per life year gained in mothers. A 1% MTCT rate, a 90% coverage rate and a 20-year horizon could decrease the ICER per QALY acquired in children and LY gained in mothers. CONCLUSIONS: Option B+ is a cost-effective treatment for comprehensive HIV prevention for infants and serodiscordant partners and life-long treatment for mothers in Yunnan province, China. Option B+ could be implemented in Yunnan province, especially as the goals of elimination mother-to-child transmission of HIV and "90-90-90" achieved, Option B+ would be more attractive.

Cost-effective options for the prevention and management of gastrointestinal and liver disease in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific region contains more than half of the world's population and is markedly heterogeneous in relation to income levels and the provision of public and private health services. For low-income countries, the major health priorities are child and maternal health. In contrast, priorities for high-income countries include vascular disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, and mental health disorders as well as chronic inflammatory disorders such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Cost-effectiveness analyses are methods for assessing the gains in health relative to the costs of different health interventions. Methods for measuring health outcomes include years of life saved (or lost), quality-adjusted life years, and disability-adjusted life years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio measures the cost (usually in US dollars) per life year saved, quality-adjusted life year gained, or disability-adjusted life year averted of one intervention relative to another. In low-income countries, approximately 50% of infant deaths (< 5 years) are caused by gastroenteritis, the major pathogen being rotavirus infection. Rotavirus vaccines appear to be cost-effective but, thus far, have not been widely adopted. In contrast, infant vaccination for hepatitis B is promoted in most countries with a striking reduction in the prevalence of infection in vaccinated individuals. Cost-effectiveness analyses have also been applied to newer and more expensive drugs for hepatitis B and C and to government-sponsored programs for the early detection of hepatocellular, gastric, and colorectal cancer. Most of these studies reveal that newer drugs and surveillance programs for cancer are only marginally cost-effective in the setting of a high-income country.

Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) in the post-autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) failure period, from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate lifetime costs and benefits of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care for the treatment of patients with hl after failure of asct. Administrative data from Ontario were used to set the model parameters. RESULTS: In the base case, treatment with brentuximab vedotin resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.544 and an incremental cost of $89,366 per patient, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $164,248 per qaly gained. The icer was sensitive to the cost of brentuximab vedotin, the hazard ratio used to assess the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin treatment, and health state utilities. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the available information, brentuximab vedotin has an icer exceeding $100,000 per qaly gained, which is a level often classified as having "weak evidence for adoption and appropriate utilization" in Canada. However, it is worth noting that provincial cancer agencies take into account not only the costs and associated icer, but also other factors such as a lack of alternative treatment options and the clinical benefits of expensive cancer drugs. Pricing arrangements should be negotiated, and risk-sharing agreements or patient access schemes should be explored.

Dealing With Missing Behavioral Endpoints in Health Promotion Research by Modeling Cognitive Parameters in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Behavioral Interventions: A Validation Study.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of behavioral interventions typically use physical outcome criteria. However, any progress in cognitive antecedents of behavior change may be seen as a beneficial outcome of an intervention. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility and validity of incorporating cognitive parameters of behavior change in CEAs. The CEA from a randomized controlled trial on smoking cessation was reanalyzed. First, relevant cognitive antecedents of behavior change in this dataset were identified. Then, transition probabilities between combined states of smoking and cognitions at 6 weeks and corresponding 6 months smoking status were obtained from the dataset. These rates were extrapolated to the period from 6 to 12 months in a decision analytic model. Simulated results were compared with the 12 months' observed cost-effectiveness results. Self-efficacy was the strongest time-varying predictor of smoking cessation. Twelve months' observed CEA results for the multiple tailoring intervention versus usual care showed € 3188 had to be paid for each additional quitter versus € 10,600 in the simulated model. The simulated CEA showed largely similar but somewhat more conservative results. Using self-efficacy to enhance the estimation of the true behavioral outcome seems a feasible and valid way to estimate future cost-effectiveness.

Radiation costing methods: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Costs for radiation therapy (rt) and the methods used to cost rt are highly diverse across the literature. To date, no study has compared various costing methods in detail. Our objective was to perform a thorough review of the radiation costing literature to identify sources of costs and methods used. METHODS: A systematic review of Ovid medline, Ovid oldmedline, embase, Ovid HealthStar, and EconLit from 2005 to 23 March 2015 used search terms such as "radiation," "radiotherapy," "neoplasm," "cost," " cost analysis," and "cost benefit analysis" to locate relevant articles. Original papers were reviewed for detailed costing methods. Cost sources and methods were extracted for papers investigating rt modalities, including three-dimensional conformal rt (3D-crt), intensity-modulated rt (imrt), stereotactic body rt (sbrt), and brachytherapy (bt). All costs were translated into 2014 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Most of the studies (91%) reported in the 33 articles retrieved provided rt costs from the health system perspective. The cost of rt ranged from US$2,687.87 to US$111,900.60 per treatment for imrt, followed by US$5,583.28 to US$90,055 for 3D-crt, US$10,544.22 to US$78,667.40 for bt, and US$6,520.58 to US$19,602.68 for sbrt. Cost drivers were professional or personnel costs and the cost of rt treatment. Most studies did not address the cost of rt equipment (85%) and institutional or facility costs (66%). CONCLUSIONS: Costing methods and sources were widely variable across studies, highlighting the need for consistency in the reporting of rt costs. More work to promote comparability and consistency across studies is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent. RESULTS: Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

An economic evaluation of a self-care intervention in persons with heart failure and diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Persons with concomitant heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus constitute a growing population whose quality of life is encumbered with worse clinical outcomes as well as high health resource use (HRU) and costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Extensive data on HRU and costs were collected as part of a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of a self-care intervention to improve outcomes in persons with both HF and diabetes. HRU costs were assigned from a Medicare reimbursement perspective. Patients (n = 134) randomized to the self-care intervention and those receiving usual care/attention control were followed for 6 months, revealing significant differences in the number of hospitalization days and associated costs between groups. The mean number of inpatient days was 3 with bootstrapped bias-corrected (BCa) confidence intervals (CIs) of 1.8-4.4 d for the intervention group and 7.3 d (BCa CI 4.1-10.9 d) in the control group: P = .044. Total direct HRU costs per participant were an estimated $9,065 (BCa CI $6,496-$11,936) in the intervention and $16,712 (BCa CI 8,200-$26,621) in the control group, for a mean difference of -$7,647 (BCa CI -$17,588 to $809; P = .21) in favor of the intervention, including intervention costs estimated to be $130.67 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The self-care intervention demonstrated dominance in lowering costs without sacrificing quality-adjusted life-years.

Understanding Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: An Explanation Using Three Different Analyses of Lung Cancer Screening.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) contribute to informed decision making, at both the practitioner and societal levels; therefore, understanding CEAs is valuable for radiologists. In light of the recently published National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) CEA, we aim to explain the terminology, methods, and heterogeneity of CEAs. CONCLUSION: We compared the NLST results to two example lung cancer screening CEAs (which do not rely on NLST data). Both examples assessed screening but reached substantially different conclusions.

The patient undergoing implant therapy. Summary and consensus statements. The 4th EAO Consensus Conference 2015.

INTRODUCTION: The assignment for this working group was to update the existing knowledge regarding factors considered being of special relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. This included areas where conflicting opinions exists since long or recently has been expressed, like the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in dental implant surgery and peri-implantitis. Also areas with growing interest and concern such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-economy was included in this review. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature in the respective areas of interest (antibiotic prophylaxis, peri-implantitis, patient-reported outcome measurements and health-economic aspects) was searched using different strategies for the different papers. Search strategies ranged from a complex systematic review to systematic- and narrative reviews, depending on subject and available literature. All collected material was critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were subsequently presented for group analysis and discussion and plenum discussions and concensus approval. The selected areas were considered to be of key importance and relevance for the patient undergoing implant therapy. RESULTS: The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. The group's conclusions, identified knowledge gaps, directions for future research and concensus statements are presented in this article. The following reviews were available for group discussions and the foundation for subsequent plenary sessions: Lund B, Hultin M, Tranaeus S, Naimi-Akbar A, Klinge B. (2015) Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement. A complex systematic review. Renvert S & Quirynen M. (2015) Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Matthys C, Cosyn J. (2015) The current use of patient centered/reported outcomes in implant dentistry. A systematic review. Beikler T & Flemmig T.F. (2015) Economic evaluation of implant-supported prostheses. A narrative review.

Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was developed to improve the accuracy of prenatal screening to detect chromosomal abnormalities. Published economic analyses have yielded different incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs), leading to conclusions of NIPT being dominant, cost-effective, and cost-ineffective. These analyses have used different model structures, and the extent to which these structural variations have contributed to differences in ICERs is unclear. AIM: To assess the impact of different model structures on the cost-effectiveness of NIPT for the detection of trisomy 21 (T21; Down syndrome). METHODS: A systematic review identified economic models comparing NIPT to conventional screening. The key variations in identified model structures were the number of health states and modeling approach. New models with different structures were developed in TreeAge and populated with consistent parameters to enable a comparison of the impact of selected structural variations on results. RESULTS: The review identified 34 economic models. Based on these findings, demonstration models were developed: 1) a decision tree with 3 health states, 2) a decision tree with 5 health states, 3) a microsimulation with 3 health states, and 4) a microsimulation with 5 health states. The base-case ICER from each model was 1) USD$34,474 (2023)/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2) USD$14,990 (2023)/QALY, (3) USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY, and (4) NIPT was dominated. CONCLUSION: Model-structuring choices can have a large impact on the ICER and conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness, which may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding for NIPT. The use of reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening. HIGHLIGHTS: NIPT is a clinical area in which a variety of modeling approaches have been published, with wide variation in reported cost-effectiveness.This study shows that when broader contextual factors are held constant, varying the model structure yields results that range from NIPT being less effective and more expensive than conventional screening (i.e., NIPT was dominated) through to NIPT being more effective and more expensive than conventional screening with an ICER of USD$54,983 (2023)/QALY.Model-structuring choices may inadvertently affect policy decisions to support or not support funding of NIPT. Reference models could improve international consistency in health policy decision making for prenatal screening.

Publication patterns of cancer cost-effectiveness studies presented at major conferences.

OBJECTIVE: To be useful to policymakers and stakeholders, cost-effectiveness analyses (ceas) should be published in a timely manner and without bias. The aims of the present study were to examine the time between conference abstract presentation and subsequent publication, to determine the factors associated with time to publication, to evaluate potential publication bias, and to examine discrepancies in the results between abstract and publication. METHODS: Abstracts of ceas presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (asco), the American Society of Hematology (ash), and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ispor) between 1997 and 2007 were reviewed. Time-to-event analysis was performed to assess the timeliness of publication and to examine factors associated with time to publication. Summary statistics were used to assess discrepancies in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) between abstract and publication. RESULTS: Of 164 abstracts identified, 65 (39.6%) were subsequently published. The 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year publication rates were 12.8%, 25%, 34.2%, and 40.5% respectively. Abstracts were more likely to be published if presented at asco than at ispor (hazard ratio: 1.94; p = 0.038). There was no direct evidence of publication bias for abstracts with favourable icers. Comparing icers between abstracts and publications, the mean absolute difference was 23.8%; 50% of studies had a change in icer exceeding 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Publication rates for ceas were low, and publication was not timely with respect to informing the decision-making process for funding. Abstract results often differed from publication results and cannot reliably be used in the decision-making process for funding.

Factors associated with the author-reported cost-effectiveness threshold in high-income countries: systematic review and multivariable modelling.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) is a key parameter to guide objective reimbursement decisions, yet very few countries have defined a reference CET, and there is no reference method for defining it. Our objective was to determine the factors explaining the author-reported CETs in the literature. METHODS: Our systematic review targeted original articles referenced in EMBASE and published between 2010 and 2021. Selected studies had to use Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY), and being conducted in high-income countries. Our explanatory variables were: estimated cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), region of the world, source of funding, type of intervention, disease, year of publication, justification of the author-reported Cost-Effectiveness Threshold (ar-CET), economic perspective, and declaration of interest. Multivariable linear regression models implemented on R software were used, guided by a Directed Acyclic Graph. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty four studies were included. The mean ar-CET was €63,338/QALY (standard deviation (SD) 34,965) overall, and €37,748/QALY (SD 20,750) in studies conducted in the British Commonwealth. The ar-CET increased slightly with the ICER (+ 66€/QALY for each additional 10,000€/QALY in the ICER, 95% confidence interval (IC) [31-102], p < 0.001), was higher in the United States (+ 36,225€/QALY; IC [25,582; 46,869]) and Europe (+ 10,352€/QALY; IC [72; 20,631]) compared to the British Commonwealth (p < 0.001), and was higher when the ar-CET was not defined a priori (+ 22,393€/QALY; [5809; 38,876]) compared to state recommendations defined ar-CET (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline the virtuous role of state recommendations in the choice of a low and homogeneous CET. We also highlight the need to integrate the a priori justification of the CET into good publishing guidelines.