Abstract:Background and Objectives: Utility elicitation studies for schizophrenia generate different utility values for the same health states. We reviewed utility values used in schizophrenia pharmacoeconomic evaluations and evaluated the impact of their selection on the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER). Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline and Embase. Health state definitions, associated utility values, elicitation studies, and value selection processes were extracted. Sets of utility value… Show more
“…All claim to measure utility on the same scale. However, as these measures are based on different health descriptions there is growing evidence that they produce different results [ 2 , 3 , 17 , 39 , 43 , 44 ]. Hence agreement on the most appropriate utility measurement method for future cost-effectiveness analyses of treatment options for ACL injury patients is needed, potentially aligned with the preference of Heath Technology Assessment authorities for EQ-5D [ 3 ].…”
Purpose
To systematically review the literature on health-economic evaluations of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury between reconstruction surgery (ACLR) and non-operative treatment (NO) and suggest the most cost-effective strategy between the two.
Methods
All economic studies related to ACLR versus NO post-ACL injury, either trial based or model based, published until April 2022, were identified using PubMed and Embase. The methodology of the health-economic analysis for each included study was categorized according to the four approaches: cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost–benefit analysis (CBA), and cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.
Results
Of the seven included studies, two compared the strategies of early ACLR and NO alone, and five compared early ACLR and NO with optional delayed ACLR. All studies performed a CUA, and one study performed a CBA additionally. The CHEC scores of the included studies can be considered good, ranging from 15 to 18 from a maximum of 19. Applying the common standard threshold of $50,000 per QALY, six studies in young people with high-activity levels or athletes showed that early ACLR would be preferred over either NO alone or delayed ACLR. Of six studies, two even showed early ACLR to be the dominant strategy over either NO alone or delayed ACLR, with per-patient cost savings of $5,164 and $1,803 and incremental per-patient QALY gains of 0.18 and 0.28, respectively. The one study in the middle-aged people with a moderate activity level showed that early ACLR was not more cost-effective than delayed ACLR, with ICER $101,939/QALY using the societal perspective and ICER $63,188/QALY using the healthcare system perspective.
Conclusion
Early ACLR is likely the more cost-effective strategy for ACL injury cases in athletes and young populations with high-activity levels. On the other hand, non-operative treatment with optional delayed ACLR may be the more cost-effective.
Level of evidence
Systematic review of level III studies.
“…All claim to measure utility on the same scale. However, as these measures are based on different health descriptions there is growing evidence that they produce different results [ 2 , 3 , 17 , 39 , 43 , 44 ]. Hence agreement on the most appropriate utility measurement method for future cost-effectiveness analyses of treatment options for ACL injury patients is needed, potentially aligned with the preference of Heath Technology Assessment authorities for EQ-5D [ 3 ].…”
Purpose
To systematically review the literature on health-economic evaluations of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury between reconstruction surgery (ACLR) and non-operative treatment (NO) and suggest the most cost-effective strategy between the two.
Methods
All economic studies related to ACLR versus NO post-ACL injury, either trial based or model based, published until April 2022, were identified using PubMed and Embase. The methodology of the health-economic analysis for each included study was categorized according to the four approaches: cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost–benefit analysis (CBA), and cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.
Results
Of the seven included studies, two compared the strategies of early ACLR and NO alone, and five compared early ACLR and NO with optional delayed ACLR. All studies performed a CUA, and one study performed a CBA additionally. The CHEC scores of the included studies can be considered good, ranging from 15 to 18 from a maximum of 19. Applying the common standard threshold of $50,000 per QALY, six studies in young people with high-activity levels or athletes showed that early ACLR would be preferred over either NO alone or delayed ACLR. Of six studies, two even showed early ACLR to be the dominant strategy over either NO alone or delayed ACLR, with per-patient cost savings of $5,164 and $1,803 and incremental per-patient QALY gains of 0.18 and 0.28, respectively. The one study in the middle-aged people with a moderate activity level showed that early ACLR was not more cost-effective than delayed ACLR, with ICER $101,939/QALY using the societal perspective and ICER $63,188/QALY using the healthcare system perspective.
Conclusion
Early ACLR is likely the more cost-effective strategy for ACL injury cases in athletes and young populations with high-activity levels. On the other hand, non-operative treatment with optional delayed ACLR may be the more cost-effective.
Level of evidence
Systematic review of level III studies.
“…This review has highlighted differences in HSUVs across measurement approaches. The difference in HSUVs obtained with the EQ-5D and SF-6D of 0.07 can have a large impact in costeffectiveness analysis (see Mohiuddin 54 and Zhou 60 for illustrative examples). Differences are greater with the QWB scale, an instrument widely used in the United States.…”
Patient preferences are increasingly important in informing clinical and policy decisions. Health-state utility values (HSUVs) are quantitative measures of people's preferences over different health states. In schizophrenia, there is no clarity about HSUVs across the symptoms' severity spectrum. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize the literature on HSUVs in people with schizophrenia.Methods: We searched Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, EconLit, The Cochrane Library, and specialized databases. The studies reporting HSUVs in people with schizophrenia were selected and pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the mean HSUV obtained from participants.Results: A total of 54 studies involving 87 335 participants were included. The pooled estimate using direct elicitation was a mean HSUV of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88) for mild symptomatic states, 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54-0.85) in moderate states, and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.13-0.56) in severe states. Studies using indirect techniques resulted in a pooled mean HSUV of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) applying the EuroQol 5-dimension, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71) in the Short-Form 6-dimension, and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.57-0.61) using the Quality of Well-Being scale. All the estimates resulted in considerable heterogeneity, partially reduced by meta-regression.
Conclusion:Our findings suggest that the severity of psychotic symptoms has an important effect on HSUVs in schizophrenia, with values mirroring patients with disabling physical conditions such as cancer and stroke. Decision makers should be aware of these results when including people's preferences in trials, models, and policy decisions.
“…Figure 1 illustrates the six key health states and possible transitions between them during each cycle in a Markov model to represent the possible clinical health states in the target population: (i) stable, (ii) LTBI, (iii) LTBI with adverse events, (iv) DS-TB, (v) MDR-TB, and (vi) dead. Health state utility values were obtained from the literature [34, 36, 37]. Figure 1. Schematic depiction of a Markov cycle tree in a state transition model.…”
Schizophrenia is recognized as a significant risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) with preventive treatment for screening of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in individuals with schizophrenia. A state transition model was developed from a healthcare payer perspective on a lifetime horizon. Ten strategies were compared by combining two different tests for LTBI, i.e. IGRA and tuberculin skin test (TST), and five different preventive treatments, i.e. 9-month isoniazid (9H), 3-month isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP) by directly observed therapy, 3HP by self-administered therapy, 3-month isoniazid and rifampin (3RH), and 4-month rifampin (4R). The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life expectancy life-years (LYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, drug-sensitive tuberculosis (DS-TB) cases, and TB-related deaths. For both bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-vaccinated and non-BCGvaccinated individuals, IGRA with 4R was the most cost-effective and TST with 3RH was the least effective. Among schizophrenic individuals in Japan, IGRA with 4R saved US$17.8 million, increased 58,981 QALYs and 935 LYs, and prevented 222 DS-TB cases and 75 TB-related deaths compared with TST with 3RH. In individuals with schizophrenia, IGRA with 4R is recommended for LTBI screening with preventive treatment to reduce costs, morbidity, and mortality from TB.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
