Dataset Information

Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER).

Methods

We built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This permits determination of whether an alternative is cost-effective, given a specific threshold (TINB > 0 test). Before validation of the model, the structure of dependence between costs and quality-adjusted life years (QoL) was analysed using copula distributions. The goodness-of-fit of a Spanish prospective observational study (n = 498) was analysed using the Independent, Gaussian, T, Gumbel, Clayton, Frank and Placket copulas. Validation was carried out by simulating a copula distribution with log-normal distribution for costs and gamma distribution for disutilities. Hypothetical cohorts were created by varying the sample size (n: 15-500) and assuming three scenarios (1-cost-effective; 2-non-cost-effective; 3-dominant). The COMER result was compared to the theoretical result according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the INB, assuming a margin of error of 2,000 and 500 monetary units, respectively.

Results

The Frank copula with positive dependence (-0.4279) showed a goodness-of-fit sufficient to represent costs and QoL (p-values 0.524 and 0.808). The theoretical INB was within the 95% confidence interval of the TINB, based on 15 individuals with a probability > 80% for scenarios 1 and 2, and > 90% for scenario 3. The TINB > 0 test with 15 individuals showed p-values of 0.0105 (SD: 0.0411) for scenario 1, 0.613 (SD: 0.265) for scenario 2 and < 0.0001 for scenario 3.

Conclusions

COMER is a valid tool for combining cost-effectiveness studies and may be of use to health decision makers.

SUBMITTER: Crespo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4292992 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To examine whether the continuous updating of networks of prospectively planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ("living" network meta-analysis) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis in comparative effectiveness of medical interventions earlier than the updating of conventional, pairwise meta-analysis.Empirical study of the accumulating evidence about the comparative effectiveness of clinical interventions.Database of network meta-analyses of RCTs identified through searches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews until 14 April 2015.Network meta-analyses published after January 2012 that compared at least five treatments and included at least 20 RCTs. Clinical experts were asked to identify in each network the treatment comparison of greatest clinical interest. Comparisons were excluded for which direct and indirect evidence disagreed, based on side, or node, splitting test (P<0.10).Cumulative pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed for each selected comparison. Monitoring boundaries of statistical significance were constructed and the evidence against the null hypothesis was considered to be strong when the monitoring boundaries were crossed. A significance level was defined as ?=5%, power of 90% (?=10%), and an anticipated treatment effect to detect equal to the final estimate from the network meta-analysis. The frequency and time to strong evidence was compared against the null hypothesis between pairwise and network meta-analyses.49 comparisons of interest from 44 networks were included; most (n=39, 80%) were between active drugs, mainly from the specialties of cardiology, endocrinology, psychiatry, and rheumatology. 29 comparisons were informed by both direct and indirect evidence (59%), 13 by indirect evidence (27%), and 7 by direct evidence (14%). Both network and pairwise meta-analysis provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis for seven comparisons, but for an additional 10 comparisons only network meta-analysis provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis (P=0.002). The median time to strong evidence against the null hypothesis was 19 years with living network meta-analysis and 23 years with living pairwise meta-analysis (hazard ratio 2.78, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 7.72, P=0.05). Studies directly comparing the treatments of interest continued to be published for eight comparisons after strong evidence had become evident in network meta-analysis.In comparative effectiveness research, prospectively planned living network meta-analyses produced strong evidence against the null hypothesis more often and earlier than conventional, pairwise meta-analyses.

Project description:Introduction: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers’ cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. Results: We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1–46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541

Project description:Introduction: The Chinese government has established a nationwide community-based chronic disease management program since 2009 with hypertension a vital part of it. Though drugs have been proven effective with hypertensive patients, they bring economic burden as well, especially for those who with elevated blood pressure and are potentially eligible for national programs. When the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy-only interventions remains uncertain on these patients, non-pharmacological interventions have demonstrated non-inferior effectiveness and may have economic advantages. To date, there rarely are evidences on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatment in comparison with pharmacological interventions for patients with varying severity of blood pressure. This study aims to propose a study for a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to explore what kind of intervention is potentially effective and cost-effective to four specific patient groups, stage I-III hypertensive patients and patients with elevated blood pressure, and to provide recommendations for hypertensive management to Chinese decision makers. Methods: We will systematically search databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, etc.,) for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with qualified study design in recent decade that assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological, pharmacological, or combined intervention aimed at adult populations who are diagnosed with the above four types of hypertension in China. The effectiveness outcomes will include changes in SBP/DBP, rate of comorbidities, mortality, and health related quality of life. We will use network meta-analysis to compare and rank effectiveness of different interventions. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses will be performed to analyze and explain heterogeneity. The economic outcome will include cost-effectiveness based on simulation results from Markov models. Under study perspective of Chinese health system, life-time direct cost will be included. Discussion: This study aims to compare and rank the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological, non-pharmacological and combined interventions for stage I-III hypertensive patients and those who with elevated blood pressure. Compared to existing studies, this comprehensive synthesis of relevant evidences will influence future practice with better efficiency and generalizability for community-based hypertensive management programs in China. The study might also be valuable for other low- and middle-income countries to find their own solutions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020151518.

Project description:ImportanceAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medicines have revolutionized diabetic macular edema (DME) treatment. A recent randomized clinical trial comparing anti-VEGF agents for patients with decreased vision from DME found that at 1 year aflibercept (2.0 mg) achieved better visual outcomes than repackaged (compounded) bevacizumab (1.25 mg) or ranibizumab (0.3 mg); the worse the starting vision, the greater the treatment benefit with aflibercept. However, aflibercept and ranibizumab, respectively, are approximately 31 and 20 times more expensive than bevacizumab.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of DME.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analysis of efficacy, safety, and resource utilization data at 1-year follow-up from the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network Comparative Effectiveness Trial. Patients were enrolled from August 22, 2012, through August 28, 2013, and analysis was performed from August 21, 2014, through November 7, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresThe ICERs for all trial participants and subgroups with baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/32 to 20/40 (better vision) and baseline vision of approximate Snellen equivalent 20/50 or worse (worse vision). One-year trial data were used to calculate cost-effectiveness for 1 year for the 3 anti-VEGF agents; mathematical modeling was then used to project 10-year cost-effectiveness results.ResultsThe study included 624 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [10.5] years; 45.7% female; 65.5% white), 209 in the aflibercept group, 207 in the bevacizumab group, and 208 in the ranibizumab group. For all participants, during 1 year, the ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $1 110 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $1 730 000 per QALY, respectively. During 10 years, they were $349 000 per QALY and $603 000 per QALY, respectively. Compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept's ICER was $648 000 per QALY at 1 year and $203 000 per QALY at 10 years. For the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the 10-year ICERs of aflibercept and ranibizumab compared with bevacizumab were $287 000 per QALY and $817 000 per QALY, respectively. In eyes with decreased vision from DME, treatment costs of aflibercept and ranibizumab would need to decrease by 69% and 80%, respectively, to reach a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000 per QALY compared with bevacizumab during a 10-year horizon; for the subgroup with worse baseline vision, the costs would need to decrease by 62% and 84%, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAflibercept (2.0 mg) and ranibizumab (0.3 mg) are not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab for treatment of DME unless their prices decrease substantially. These results highlight the challenges that physicians, patients, and policymakers face when safety and efficacy results are at odds with cost-effectiveness results.