IntroductionCalculating 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

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.

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.

This research was funded by Biogen, which provided an unrestricted research grant to the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Biogen and Sobi reviewed and provided feedback on the manuscript. The authors had full editorial control of the manuscript and provided final approval of all content. The authors report no conflict of interest regarding the material discussed in this article. Neumann and Chambers are employed at the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health at Tufts Medical Center. Thorat was an employee of Center for Evaluation Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center when the analyses were carried out. Chambers has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi and Astellas Pharma.

No abstract

There are multiple payers in the US health care system, each making its own coverage determinations for medical technologies. For each of the forty-seven medical devices considered in national coverage determinations (NCDs) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued between February 1999 and August 2013, we compared CMS's coverage policy with the policies issued by the largest sixteen private payers that made their decisions publicly available. Overall, we found that NCDs were equivalent to the corresponding private payer policies roughly half of the time, more restrictive approximately a quarter of the time, and less restrictive about a quarter of the time. Our findings indicate that patients may have variable access to medical technology across Medicare and private plans. They also suggest that private plans do not necessarily follow CMS's lead in making coverage decisions.

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.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare, progressive, multi-organ genetic disease. Ivacaftor, a small-molecule CF transmembrane conductance regulator modulator, was the first medication to treat the underlying cause of CF. Since its approval, real-world clinical experience on the use of ivacaftor has been documented in large registries and smaller studies. Here, we systematically review data from real-world observational studies of ivacaftor treatment in people with CF (pwCF). Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified 368 publications reporting real-world studies that enrolled six or more pwCF treated with ivacaftor published between January 2012 and September 2019. Overall, 75 publications providing data from 57 unique studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Studies reporting within-group change for pwCF treated with ivacaftor consistently showed improvements in lung function, nutritional parameters, and patient-reported respiratory and sino-nasal symptoms. Benefits were evident as early as 1 month following ivacaftor initiation and were sustained over long-term follow-up. Decreases in pulmonary exacerbations, Pseudomonas aeruginosa prevalence, and healthcare resource utilization also were reported for up to 66 months following ivacaftor initiation. In studies comparing ivacaftor treatment to modulator untreated comparator groups, clinical benefits similarly were reported as were decreases in mortality, organ-transplantation, and CF-related complications. The safety profile of ivacaftor observed in these real-world studies was consistent with the well-established safety profile based on clinical trial data. Our systematic review of real-world studies shows ivacaftor treatment in pwCF results in highly consistent and sustained clinical benefit in both pulmonary and non-pulmonary outcomes across various geographies, study designs, patient characteristics, and follow-up durations, confirming and expanding upon evidence from clinical trials.