OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to simulate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of Thai smokers aged ≥35 years receiving smoking cessation services offered from FAHSAI Clinic or usual care over a horizon of 50 years. The model used a 6-month continuous abstinence rate from a multicenter prospective study of 24 FAHSAI Clinics. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess robustness of study findings. Cost data are presented in US$ for 2020.
RESULTS: The FAHSAI Clinic was dominant as it was less costly ($9537.92 vs $10964.19) and more effective (6.06 vs 5.96 QALYs) compared with usual care over the 50-year time horizon. Changes in risks of stroke and coronary heart disease among males had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness findings. The probability that FAHSAI Clinic was cost-effective was 99.8% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $5120.
CONCLUSIONS: The FAHSAI Clinic smoking cessation program was clinically superior and cost-saving compared to usual care for Thai patients with CVD in all scenarios. A budget impact analysis is needed to estimate the financial impact of adopting this program within the Thai healthcare system.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis used decision tree and Markov models to estimate lifetime costs and health benefits from societal perspective, based on a cohort of 509 metabolic syndrome patients in Thailand. Data were obtained from published literatures and Thai database. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2014 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with discount rate of 3%. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results.
RESULTS: The ICER of ultrasonography screening of 50-year-old metabolic syndrome patients with intensive weight reduction program was 958 USD/QALY gained when compared with no screening. The probability of being cost-effective was 67% using willingness-to-pay threshold in Thailand (4848 USD/QALY gained). Screening before 45 years was cost saving while screening at 45 to 64 years was cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with metabolic syndromes, ultrasonography screening for NAFLD with intensive weight reduction program is a cost-effective program in Thailand. Study can be used as part of evidence-informed decision making.
TRANSLATIONAL IMPACTS: Findings could contribute to changes of NAFLD diagnosis practice in settings where economic evidence is used as part of decision-making process. Furthermore, study design, model structure, and input parameters could also be used for future research addressing similar questions.
METHODS: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.
METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and treatment outcomes of warfarin care bundles and NOACs compared with usual warfarin care. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old atrial fibrillation patients. Input parameters were derived from published literature, meta-analysis and local data when available. The outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (ICER).
RESULTS: Using USD5104 as the threshold of willingness-to-pay per QALY, patient's self-management of warfarin was cost-effective when compared to usual warfarin care, with an ICER of USD1395/QALY from societal perspective. All NOACs were not cost-effective in Thailand, with ICER ranging from USD8678 to USD14,247/QALY. When compared to the next most effective intervention, patient's self-testing and genotype-guided warfarin dosing were dominated. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, patient's self-management had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Thailand, approximately 78%. Results were robust over a range of inputs in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, NOACs were unlikely to be cost-effective at current prices. Conversely, patient's self-management is a highly cost-effective intervention and may be considered for adoption in developing regions with resource-limited healthcare systems.
METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed.
RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.
Methods: We performed a literature search to determine preference-based value algorithms in the general population of a given country. We then fitted a second-order quadratic function to assess the utility function curve that links health status with health-care utilities. We ranked the countries according to the concavity and convexity properties of their utility functions and compared this ranking with that of the Hofstede index to check if there were any similarities.
Results: We identified 10 countries with an EQ-5D-5L-based value set and 7 countries with an EQ-5D-3L-based value set. Japan's degree of concavity was highest, while Germany's was lowest, based on the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L value sets. Japan also ranked first in the Hofstede long-term orientation index, and rankings related to the degree of concavity, indicating a low time preference rate.
Conclusions: This is the first evaluation to identify and report an association between different cultural beliefs and utility values. These findings underline the necessity to take local values into consideration when designing health technology assessment systems.
METHODS: The study included scoping review and key stakeholder interviews in four focus countries - Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. The current landscape of PM adoption was evaluated based on an assessment framework of six key themes - healthcare system, governance, access, awareness, implementation, and data. Six PM programs were evaluated for their financing and implementation mechanisms.
RESULTS: The findings revealed SEA has progressed in adopting PM especially Singapore and Thailand. A regional pharmacogenomics research network has been established. However, PM policies and programs vary significantly. As most PM programs are champion-driven and the available funding is limited, the current PM distribution has the potential to widen existing health disparities. Low PM awareness in the society and the absence of political support with financial investment are fundamental barriers. There is a clear need to broaden opportunities for critical discourse about PM especially for policymakers. Multi-stakeholder, multi-country strategies need to be prioritized in order to leverage resources and expertise.
CONCLUSIONS: Adopting PM remains in its infancy in SEA. To achieve an effective PM adoption, it is imperative to balance equity issues across diverse populations while improving efficiency in healthcare.