Objective This study aims to cost and calculate the relative cost-effectiveness of the hypothetical suppression policies found in the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team model. Methods Key population-level disease projections in deaths, intensive care unit bed days, and non–intensive care unit bed days were taken from the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team report of March 2020, which influenced the decision to introduce suppression policies in the United Kingdom. National income loss estimates were from a study that estimated the impact of a hypothetical pandemic on the UK economy, with sensitivity analyses based on projections that are more recent. Individual quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss and costed resource use inputs were taken from published sources. Results Imperial model projected suppression polices compared to an unmitigated pandemic, even with the most pessimistic national income loss scenarios under suppression (10%), give incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below £50 000 per QALY. Assuming a maximum reduction in national income of 7.75%, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for Imperial model projected suppression versus mitigation are below 60 000 per QALY. Conclusions Results are uncertain and conditional on the accuracy of the Imperial model projections; they are also sensitive to estimates of national income loss. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to claim that the hypothetical Imperial model–projected suppression policies are obviously cost-ineffective relative to the alternatives available. Despite evolving differences between government policy and Imperial model–projected suppression policy, it is hoped this article will provide some early insight into the trade-offs that are involved.

Objectives: Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain. Methods: The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines. Results: The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled. Conclusions: To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged. ARTICLE HISTORY

Introduction The clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting. Methods A short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients. Results In the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY. Conclusion Ceftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00436-4.

No abstract

No abstract