METHODS: A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.
RESULTS: A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.
METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was developed to include 7 attributes valued in cancer management: physical, psychological and social functioning, pain control, survival, place of death, and cost. Patients were recruited via convenience sampling from 2 Malaysian public hospitals. The survey questionnaire was administered to patients within 6 months of their cancer diagnosis with a follow-up 3 months later. Conditional logit regression was used to estimate the preference weight, relative attribute importance, and willingness to pay.
RESULTS: One hundred valid responses were collected at baseline and 45 at follow-up. Respondents placed higher values on QoL improvements from severe to moderate or mild levels and to achieve home death over survival extension from 6 to 18 months. However, additional improvements (from moderate to mild) in some of the QoL outcomes were not valued as highly as life extension from 12 to 18 months, showing that it was vital for patients to avoid being in "severe" health dysfunction. Improving physical dysfunction from severe to mild yielded 3 times as much value as additional 1-year survival. After 3 months, the respondents' preferences changed significantly, with increased relative attribute importance of physical functioning, pain control, and cost.
CONCLUSIONS: As QoL outcomes are valued more than survival, palliative care should be introduced as early as possible to alleviate suffering related to advanced cancer.