OBJECTIVES: To determine a CE threshold for health care interventions in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, contingent valuation study was conducted using a stratified multistage cluster random sampling technique in four states in Malaysia. One thousand thirteen respondents were interviewed in person for their socioeconomic background, quality of life, and WTP for a hypothetical scenario.
RESULTS: The CE thresholds established using the nonparametric Turnbull method ranged from MYR12,810 to MYR22,840 (~US $4,000-US $7,000), whereas those estimated with the parametric interval regression model were between MYR19,929 and MYR28,470 (~US $6,200-US $8,900). Key factors that affected the CE thresholds were education level, estimated monthly household income, and the description of health state scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is no single WTP value for a quality-adjusted life-year. The CE threshold estimated for Malaysia was found to be lower than the threshold value recommended by the World Health Organization.
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 simulation-based approach contingent on all single-level transitions defined by the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system was used to estimate the MID for each algorithm.
RESULTS: The resulting mean (and standard deviation) instrument-defined MID estimates were Germany, 0.083 (0.022); Indonesia, 0.093 (0.012); Ireland, 0.098 (0.023); Malaysia, 0.072 (0.010); Poland, 0.080 (0.030); Portugal, 0.080 (0.018); Taiwan, 0.101 (0.010); and the United States, 0.078 (0.014).
CONCLUSIONS: These population preference-based MID estimates and accompanying evidence of how such values vary as a function of baseline index score can be used to aid interpretation of index score change. The marked consistency in the relationship between the calculated MID estimate and the range of the EQ-5D-5L index score, represented by a ratio of 1:20, might substantiate a rule of thumb allowing for MID approximation in EQ-5D-5L index score warranting further investigation.