Dataset Information

Buy now, saved later? The critical impact of time-to-pandemic uncertainty on pandemic cost-effectiveness analyses.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Investment in pandemic preparedness is a long-term gamble, with the return on investment coming at an unknown point in the future. Many countries have chosen to stockpile key resources, and the number of pandemic economic evaluations has risen sharply since 2009. We assess the importance of uncertainty in time-to-pandemic (and associated discounting) in pandemic economic evaluation, a factor frequently neglected in the literature to-date. METHODS:We use a probability tree model and Monte Carlo parameter sampling to consider the cost effectiveness of antiviral stockpiling in Cambodia under parameter uncertainty. Mean elasticity and mutual information (MI) are used to assess the importance of time-to-pandemic compared with other parameters. We also consider the sensitivity to choice of sampling distribution used to model time-to-pandemic uncertainty. RESULTS:Time-to-pandemic and discount rate are the primary drivers of sensitivity and uncertainty in pandemic cost effectiveness models. Base case cost effectiveness of antiviral stockpiling ranged between is US$112 and US$3599 per DALY averted using historical pandemic intervals for time-to-pandemic. The mean elasticities for time-to-pandemic and discount rate were greater than all other parameters. Similarly, the MI scores for time to pandemic and discount rate were greater than other parameters. Time-to-pandemic and discount rate were key drivers of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results regardless of time-to-pandemic sampling distribution choice. CONCLUSIONS:Time-to-pandemic assumptions can "substantially" affect cost-effectiveness results and, in our model, is a greater contributor to uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results than any other parameter. We strongly recommend that cost-effectiveness models include probabilistic analysis of time-to-pandemic uncertainty.

SUBMITTER: Drake T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7574603 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Buy now, saved later? The critical impact of time-to-pandemic uncertainty on pandemic cost-effectiveness analyses.

Drake Tom T Chalabi Zaid Z Coker Richard R

Health policy and planning 20131224 1

<h4>Background</h4>Investment in pandemic preparedness is a long-term gamble, with the return on investment coming at an unknown point in the future. Many countries have chosen to stockpile key resources, and the number of pandemic economic evaluations has risen sharply since 2009. We assess the importance of uncertainty in time-to-pandemic (and associated discounting) in pandemic economic evaluation, a factor frequently neglected in the literature to-date.<h4>Methods</h4>We use a probability tr ...[more]

PMID: 24369125

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.ResultsIn total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

Project description:IntroductionComparing multiple, diverse outcomes with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is important, yet challenging in areas like palliative care where domains are unamenable to integration with survival. Generic multi-attribute utility values exclude important domains and non-health outcomes, while partial analyses-where outcomes are considered separately, with their joint relationship under uncertainty ignored-lead to incorrect inference regarding preferred strategies.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to consider whether such decision making can be better informed with alternative presentation and summary measures, extending methods previously shown to have advantages in multiple strategy comparison.MethodsMultiple outcomes CEA of a home-based palliative care model (PEACH) relative to usual care is undertaken in cost disutility (CDU) space and compared with analysis on the cost-effectiveness plane. Summary measures developed for comparing strategies across potential threshold values for multiple outcomes include: expected net loss (ENL) planes quantifying differences in expected net benefit; the ENL contour identifying preferred strategies minimising ENL and their expected value of perfect information; and cost-effectiveness acceptability planes showing probability of strategies minimising ENL.ResultsConventional analysis suggests PEACH is cost-effective when the threshold value per additional day at home (?1) exceeds $1,068 or dominated by usual care when only the proportion of home deaths is considered. In contrast, neither alternative dominate in CDU space where cost and outcomes are jointly considered, with the optimal strategy depending on threshold values. For example, PEACH minimises ENL when ?1=$2,000 and ?2=$2,000 (threshold value for dying at home), with a 51.6% chance of PEACH being cost-effective.ConclusionComparison in CDU space and associated summary measures have distinct advantages to multiple domain comparisons, aiding transparent and robust joint comparison of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty across potential threshold values for effect, better informing net benefit assessment and related reimbursement and research decisions.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of a newly emerged influenza pandemic will depend on its transmissibility and severity. Understanding how these pandemic features impact on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of alternative intervention strategies is important for pandemic planning.MethodsA cost effectiveness analysis of a comprehensive range of social distancing and antiviral drug strategies intended to mitigate a future pandemic was conducted using a simulation model of a community of ?30,000 in Australia. Six pandemic severity categories were defined based on case fatality ratio (CFR), using data from the 2009/2010 pandemic to relate hospitalisation rates to CFR.ResultsIntervention strategies combining school closure with antiviral treatment and prophylaxis are the most cost effective strategies in terms of cost per life year saved (LYS) for all severity categories. The cost component in the cost per LYS ratio varies depending on pandemic severity: for a severe pandemic (CFR of 2.5%) the cost is ?$9 k per LYS; for a low severity pandemic (CFR of 0.1%) this strategy costs ?$58 k per LYS; for a pandemic with very low severity similar to the 2009 pandemic (CFR of 0.03%) the cost is ?$155 per LYS. With high severity pandemics (CFR >0.75%) the most effective attack rate reduction strategies are also the most cost effective. During low severity pandemics costs are dominated by productivity losses due to illness and social distancing interventions, while for high severity pandemics costs are dominated by hospitalisation costs and productivity losses due to death.ConclusionsThe most cost effective strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic involve combining sustained social distancing with the use of antiviral agents. For low severity pandemics the most cost effective strategies involve antiviral treatment, prophylaxis and short durations of school closure; while these are cost effective they are less effective than other strategies in reducing the infection rate.

Project description:In a rapidly growing and aging population, heart failure (HF) has become recognised as a public health concern that imposes high economic and societal costs worldwide. HF management stems from the use of highly cost-effective angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and β-blockers to the use of newer drugs such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), ivabradine, and vericiguat. Modelling studies of pharmacological treatments that report on cost effectiveness in HF is important in order to guide clinical decision making. Multiple cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) suggests that it is not only cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term clinical outcomes, but is also likely to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds in many countries. Similar promising results have also been shown for vericiguat while a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of empagliflozin has shown cost effectiveness in HF patients with Type 2 diabetes. Despite the recent FDA approval of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in HF, it might take time for these SGLT2i to be widely used in real-world practice. A recent economic evaluation of vericiguat found it to be cost effective at a higher cost per QALY threshold than SGLT2i. However, there is a lack of clinical or real-world data regarding whether vericiguat would be prescribed on top of newer treatments or in lieu of them. Sacubitril/valsartan has been commonly compared to enalapril in cost effectiveness analysis and has been found to be similar to that of SGLT2i but was not considered a cost-effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in Thailand and Singapore with the current economic evaluation evidences. In order for more precise analysis on cost effectiveness analysis, it is necessary to take into account the income level of various countries as it is certainly easier to allocate more financial resources for the intervention, with greater effectiveness, in high- and middle-income countries than in low-income countries. This review aims to evaluate evidence and cost effectiveness studies in more recent HF drugs i.e., SGLT2i, ARNi, ivabradine, vericiguat and omecamtiv, and gaps in current literature on pharmacoeconomic studies in HF.

Dataset Information

Buy now, saved later? The critical impact of time-to-pandemic uncertainty on pandemic cost-effectiveness analyses.

Publications

Buy now, saved later? The critical impact of time-to-pandemic uncertainty on pandemic cost-effectiveness analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets