Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluating Policies of Expanding Versus Restricting First-Line Treatment Choices: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Framework.
Jiao, Boshen; Carlson, Josh J; Garrison, Louis P; Basu, Anirban.
Afiliação
  • Jiao B; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Havard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: bjiao@hsph.harvard.edu.
  • Carlson JJ; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Garrison LP; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • Basu A; The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Value Health ; 27(4): 433-440, 2024 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38191022
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Healthcare payers often implement coverage policies that restrict the utilization of costly new first-line treatments. Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to inform these decisions by comparing the new treatment with an existing one. However, this approach may overlook important factors such as treatment effect heterogeneity and endogenous treatment selection, policy implementation costs, and diverse patient preferences across multiple treatment options. We aimed to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that considers these real-world factors, facilitating the evaluation of alternative policies related to expanding or restricting first-line treatment choices.

METHODS:

We introduced a metric of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares an expanded choice set (CS) including the new first-line treatment with a restricted CS excluding the new treatment. ICER(CS) accounts for treatment selection influenced by heterogeneous treatment effects and policy implementation costs. We examined a basic scenario with 2 standard first-line treatment choices and a more realistic scenario involving diverse preferences toward multiple choices. To illustrate the framework, we conducted a retrospective evaluation of including versus excluding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] + AAP) as a first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

RESULTS:

The traditional ICERs for ADT + AAP versus ADT alone and ADT+ docetaxel were $104 269 and $206 324/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. The ICER(CS) for comparing an expanded CS with ADT + AAP with a restricted CS without ADT + AAP was $123 179/quality-adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS:

The proposed framework provides decision makers with policy-relevant tools, enabling them to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of expanding versus restricting patients' and physicians' first-line treatment choices.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata Tipo de estudo: Evaluation_studies / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article