Teja Thorat

The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012

OBJECTIVES Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have been published widely over the years to measure the value of health care interventions. We investigated the growth and characteristics of CUAs in the peer-reviewed English-language literature through 2012. METHODS We analyzed data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, a database containing more than 3700 English-language CUAs published through 2012. We summarized various study characteristics (e.g., intervention type, funding source, and journal of publication) and methodological practices (e.g., use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis) over three time periods: 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2009, and 2010 to 2012. We also examined CUAs by country, region, and the degree to which diseases studied correlate with disease burden. RESULTS The number of published CUAs rose from 34 per year from 1990 to 1999 to 431 per year from 2010 to 2012. The proportion of studies focused on the United States declined from 61% during 1990 to 1999 to 35% during 2010 to 2012 (P < 0.0001). Although still small compared with CUAs in higher income countries, the number of CUAs focused on lower and middle-income countries has risen sharply. A large fraction of studies pertain to pharmaceuticals (46% during 2010-2012). In recent years, most studies included probabilistic sensitivity analysis (67% during 2010-2012). Journals publishing CUAs vary widely in the percentage of their studies funded by drug companies. Some conditions, such as injuries, have high burden but few CUAs. CONCLUSIONS Our review reveals considerable growth and some change in the cost-utility literature in recent years. The data suggest growing interest in cost-utility methodology, particularly in non-Western countries.

Skills of the Trade: The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry

The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry (www.cearegistry.org) is a publicly available comprehensive database of cost-utility analyses of health interventions published in the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature. This article discusses the database structure, methodology of data extraction, current trends in cost-utility analyses and impact of the Registry.

Despite High Costs, Specialty Drugs May Offer Value For Money Comparable To That Of Traditional Drugs

Specialty drugs are often many times more expensive than traditional drugs, which raises questions of affordability and value. We compared the value of specialty and traditional drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the period 1999-2011. To do this, we identified published estimates of additional health gains (measured in quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs) and increased costs of drug and health care resource use that were associated with fifty-eight specialty drugs and forty-four traditional drugs, compared to preexisting care. We found that specialty drugs offered greater QALY gains (0.183 versus 0.002 QALYs) but were associated with greater additional costs (

The State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Asia: A Systematic Review

12,238 versus

When cost-effective interventions are unaffordable: Integrating cost-effectiveness and budget impact in priority setting for global health programs

784), compared to traditional drugs. The two types of drugs had comparable cost-effectiveness. However, the distributions across the two types differed, with 26 percent of specialty drugs--but only 9 percent of traditional drugs--associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of greater than

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies Reporting Cost-per-DALY Averted.

150,000 per QALY. Our study suggests that although specialty drugs often have higher costs than traditional drugs, they also tend to confer greater benefits and hence may still offer reasonable value for money.

The lag from FDA approval to published cost-utility evidence

OBJECTIVE To review and evaluate published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) targeting populations in Asia. METHODS We examined data from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, which contains detailed information on more than 3700 English-language CUAs in peer-reviewed journals through 2012. We focused on CUAs pertaining to Asian countries (Asian CUAs), summarized study features and methodological practices, and compared them with CUAs focusing on non-Asian countries (non-Asian CUAs) from 2000 to 2012. RESULTS We identified 175 published CUAs pertaining to Asian populations (representing 5.1% of all CUAs) from 2000 to 2012. The number has increased from 19 CUAs in the period 2000 to 2004 to 107 CUAs in the period 2009 to 2012. Roughly one-third focused on Japan (33.1%), followed by Taiwan (15.4%), China (14.9%), and Thailand (8.0%). The diseases targeted in Asian CUAs were cancer (24.6%), infectious diseases (13.7%), cardiovascular diseases (8.6%), and musculoskeletal and rheumatological diseases (5.7%). More Asian CUAs evaluated primary prevention interventions (e.g., vaccinations and screenings) compared with non-Asian CUAs (21.7% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.069). Compared with non-Asian CUAs, significantly more studies in Asia suggest that the health interventions examined provide reasonable value for money. Asian and non-Asian CUAs did not differ in adherence to good methodological practices, including clearly stating the perspective, discounting costs and quality-adjusted life-years, stating a time horizon, and correctly conducting incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Asian CUAs, however, lagged in reporting sensitivity analyses, disclosing funding status, and currency year. CONCLUSIONS The number of CUAs in Asia has grown steadily, with more than half focused on pharmaceuticals. The literature reveals that CUAs generally follow good methodological practices though areas for improvement exist.

Patient Variability Seldom Assessed in Cost-effectiveness Studies:

Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact analyses should also be included in post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal projects says Joshua Salomon and colleagues.

Hemophilia Burden of Disease: A Systematic Review of the Cost-Utility Literature for Hemophilia

Introduction Calculating the cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted associated with interventions is an increasing popular means of assessing the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve population health. However, there has been no systematic attempt to characterize the literature and its evolution. Methods We conducted a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies reporting cost-per-DALY averted from 2000 through 2015. We developed the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, a repository of English-language cost-per-DALY averted studies indexed in PubMed. To identify candidate studies, we searched PubMed for articles with titles or abstracts containing the phrases “disability-adjusted” or “DALY”. Two reviewers with training in health economics independently reviewed each article selected in our abstract review, gathering information using a standardized data collection form. We summarized descriptive characteristics on study methodology: e.g., intervention type, country of study, study funder, study perspective, along with methodological and reporting practices over two time periods: 2000–2009 and 2010–2015. We analyzed the types of costs included in analyses, the study quality on a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high), and examined the correlation between diseases researched and the burden of disease in different world regions. Results We identified 479 cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2000 through 2015. Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa comprised the largest portion of published studies. The disease areas most commonly studied were communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional disorders (67%), followed by non-communicable diseases (28%). A high proportion of studies evaluated primary prevention strategies (59%). Pharmaceutical interventions were commonly assessed (32%) followed by immunizations (28%). Adherence to good practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analysis varied considerably. Studies mainly included formal healthcare sector costs. A large number of the studies in Sub-Saharan Africa addressed high-burden conditions such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases and malaria, and diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, meningitis, and other common infectious diseases. Conclusion The Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reveals a growing and diverse field of cost-per-DALY averted studies. However, study methods and reporting practices have varied substantially.

Drugs Cleared Through The FDA’s Expedited Review Offer Greater Gains Than Drugs Approved By Conventional Process

The lag between FDA approval and publication of cost-utility evidence can hamper payers from accounting for value for money in coverage and reimbursement decisions. We examine this gap, and whether it has changed over time. For drugs approved from 2000 to 2010 (n = 274), we searched the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry to identify relevant cost-utility analyses (CUAs). We identified 127 (46%) drugs associated with a CUA, 62 of which had a CUA published in the 3 years following its approval. Compared with drugs approved from 2000 to 2003, a greater proportion of those approved from 2004 to 2006, and from 2007 to 2010, was associated with a CUA published in the 3 years following approval (13 vs 25% [p = 0.06] and 13 vs 32% [p < 0.01], respectively). Study findings indicate that payers now have slightly more rapid access to published CUAs.