UNASSIGNED: Utility values offer a quantitative means to evaluate the impact of novel cancer treatments on patients\' quality of life (QoL). However, the multiple methods available for valuing QoL present challenges in selecting the most appropriate method across different contexts.
UNASSIGNED: This review provides cancer clinicians and researchers with an overview of methods to value QoL for economic evaluations, including standalone and derived preference-based measures (PBMs) and direct preference elicitation methods. Recent developments are described, including the comparative performance of cancer-specific PBMs versus generic PBMs, measurement of outcomes beyond health-related QoL, and increased use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Recommendations and considerations are provided to guide the choice of method for cancer research.
UNASSIGNED: We foresee continued adoption of the QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in cancer clinical trials given the extensive use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G in cancer research. While these cancer-specific PBMs offer the convenience of eliciting utility values without needing a standalone PBM, researchers should consider potential limitations if they intend to substitute them for generic PBMs. As the field advances, there is a greater need for consensus on the approach to selection and integration of various methods in cancer clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The current recommended treatment for patients with recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and related conditions is antipsychotic medication. However, many antipsychotic users remain functionally impaired and experience serious physical and mental side effects. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of a gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy compared to maintenance treatment over 24 months from a mental health services, health and social care, and societal perspectives.
METHODS: Nineteen mental health trusts recruited patients to the RADAR randomised controlled trial. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-5L, with years of full capability (YFCs) calculated from the patient-reported ICECAP-A. Mental health services use and medication was collected from medical records. Other resource use and productivity loss was collected using self-completed questionnaires. Costs were calculated from published sources.
RESULTS: 253 participants were randomised: 126 assigned to antipsychotic dose reduction and 127 to maintenance. There were no significant differences between arms in total costs for any perspectives. There were no significant difference in QALYs (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.123 to 0.052), whereas YFCs were significantly lower in the reduction arm compared to the maintenance arm (baseline-adjusted difference: -0.103; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.014). The reduction strategy was dominated by maintenance for all analyses and was not likely to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy is cost-effective compared with maintenance over two-years for patients with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders who are on long-term antipsychotics.

UNASSIGNED: To determine the appropriate treatment for patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous non‒small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a companion diagnostic was conducted to detect driver mutations through genetic testing. In Japan, Oncomine Dx Target Test (DxTT) using next-generation sequencing (NGS) that can comprehensively detect gene mutations or single-gene tests are conducted as companion diagnostics. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of Oncomine DxTT using NGS with that of single-gene test in Japan.
UNASSIGNED: The target population included patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC. A model structure was constructed for the Oncomine DxTT strategy and three single-gene tests (i.e., epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements) with reference to previous studies and the Clinical Practice Guidelines of Lung Cancer 2022 in Japan. The model structure assumed that genetic testing would be conducted and first-line treatment used the drug most recommended in the 2022 Japanese Lung Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines, depending on the driver mutation,. Model inputs were obtained from the literature and price list in Japan, and cost-utility analysis was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: For the Oncomine DxTT strategy, the expected incremental costs and effectiveness were estimated to be approximately JPY 172,361 (JPY 12,285,228 vs. JPY 12,112,867 for strategies A and B, respectively) and -0.51 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) per patient (21.93 QALY vs. 22.44 QALY for strategies A and B). As a result, the costs increased but the effectiveness decreased. Therefore, the Oncomine DxTT strategy was dominated by the three single-gene tests. Sensitivity and scenario analyses revealed that the test success rate of Oncomine DxTT affected the results.
UNASSIGNED: The genetic test using Oncomine DxTT before the first-line treatment is not cost-effective compared with the three single-gene tests (EGFR/ALK/ROS1) for patients with advanced/recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC.

Chemotherapy has helped prolong survival in patients with malignant lymphoma, enhancing their quality of life (QOL). Despite the eventual decline in the QOL of patients, the impact of initial chemotherapy remains poorly understood. A prospective patient-reported QOL survey among patients with malignant lymphoma receiving initial chemotherapy was conducted, targeting those treated at Gifu Municipal Hospital (Gifu, Japan) between January 2021 and December 2022. Surveys were conducted pre- and post-chemotherapy based on the EuroQol 5 dimensions. Drug costs were calculated using official prices and analyzed from the cost payer\'s perspective via cost-utility analysis. Among the 60 patients included in the present study, 28 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone ± rituximab therapy was the most common treatment (38 patients) and demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness due to its lowest cost and change in utility value. Initial chemotherapy for patients with malignant lymphoma generally improved the QOL. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000042868 (registered on December 28, 2020).

This study aimed to assess the cost-utility and budget impact of dual to single HER2 targeted neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer in Sri Lanka. A five-health state Markov model with lifetime horizon was used to assess the cost-utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) or lapatinib (L) compared to single therapy of T with chemotherapy (C), in public healthcare system and societal perspectives. Input parameters were estimated using local data, network meta-analysis, published reports and literature. Costs were adjusted to year 2021 (1USD = LKR194.78). Five-year budget impact for public healthcare system was assessed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in societal perspective for neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 3), neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 2), neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantLT (strategy 5), and neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantPT (strategy 4) compared to neoadjuvantTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 1) were USD2716, USD5600, USD6878, and USD12127 per QALY gained, respectively. One GDP per-capita (USD3815) was considered as the cost-effectiveness threshold for the analysis. Even though only the ICER for strategy 3 was cost-effective, uncertainty of efficacy parameter was revealed. For strategy 2 neoadjuvant PTC plus adjuvant T, a 25% reduction of neoadjuvant regimen cost was required to be cost effective for use in early HER2 positive breast cancer.

UNASSIGNED: Domestic and foreign studies on lung cancer have been oriented to the medical efficacy of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), but there is a lack of studies on the costs, value and cost-effectiveness of the treatment. There is a scarcity of conclusive evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of LDCT within the specific context of Taiwan. This study is designed to address this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of LDCT and chest X-ray (CXR) as screening methods for lung cancer.
UNASSIGNED: Markov decision model simulation was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of biennial screening with LDCT and CXR based on a health provider perspective. Inputs are based on probabilities, health status utility (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), costs of lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment from the literatures, and expert opinion. A total of 1,000 simulations and five cycles of Markov bootstrapping simulations were performed to compare the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of these two screening strategies. Probability and one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.
UNASSIGNED: The ICUR of early lung cancer screening compared LDCT to CXR is $-24,757.65/QALYs, and 100% of the probability agree to adopt it under a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of the Taiwan gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($35,513). The one-way sensitivity analysis also showed that ICUR depends heavily on recall rate. Based on the prevalence rate of 39.7 lung cancer cases per 100,000 people in 2020, it could be estimated that LDCT screening for high-risk populations could save $17,154,115.
UNASSIGNED: LDCT can detect more early lung cancers, reduce mortality and is cost-saving than CXR in a long-term simulation of Taiwan\'s healthcare system. This study provides valuable insights for healthcare decision-makers and suggests analyzing cost-effectiveness for additional variables in future research.

BACKGROUND: Road traffic injuries are a major concern worldwide, with Thailand facing high accident mortality rates. Drunk driving is a key factor that requires countermeasures. Random breath testing (RBT) and mass media campaigns recommended by the World Health Organisation intend to deter such behaviour. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing RBT in combination with mass media campaigns in Thailand.
METHODS: A Markov simulation model estimated the lifetime cost and health benefits of RBT with mass media campaigns compared to mass media campaigns only. Direct medical and non-medical care costs were evaluated from a societal perspective. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3% per year. Subgroup analyses were conducted for both sexes, different age groups, and different drinking levels. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted over 5,000 independent iterations using a predetermined distribution for each parameter.
RESULTS: This study suggested that RBT with mass media campaigns compared with mass media campaigns increases the lifetime cost by 24,486 THB per male binge drinker and 10,475 THB per female binge drinker (1 USD = 35 THB) and results in a QALY gain of 0.43 years per male binge drinker and 0.10 years per female binge drinker. The intervention yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 57,391 and 103,850 THB per QALY for male and female drinkers, respectively. Moreover, the intervention was cost-effective for all age groups and drinking levels. The intervention yielded the lowest ICER among male-dependent drinkers. Sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 160,000 per QALY gained, the RBT combined with mass media campaigns had a 99% probability of being optimal for male drinkers, whereas the probability for females was 91%.
CONCLUSIONS: RBT and mass media campaigns in Thailand are cost-effective for all ages and drinking levels in both sexes. The intervention yielded the lowest ICER among male-dependent drinkers. Given the current Thai WTP threshold, sensitivity analyses showed that the intervention was more cost-effective for males than females.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat degenerative lumbar spine disease. Many studies have proven that LLIF results in less soft tissue destruction and rapid recovery compared with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Our recent cost-utility study demonstrated that LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, primarily due to the utilization of an expensive bone substitute: bone morphogenetic protein 2. Therefore, this study was designed to use less expensive tricalcium phosphate combined with iliac bone graft (TCP + IBG) as a bone substitute and compare cost-utility analysis and clinical outcomes of PLIF in Thailand.
METHODS: All clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent single-level LLIF using TCP + IBG and PLIF were retrospectively collected. Preoperative and 2-year follow-up quality of life from EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels and health care cost were reviewed. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.
RESULTS: All enrolled patients were categorized into an LLIF group (n = 30) and a PLIF group (n = 50). All radiographic results (lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height) were improved at 2 years of follow-up in both groups (P < 0.001); however, the LLIF group had a dramatic significant improvement in all radiographic parameters compared with the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The fusion rate for LLIF (83.3%) and PLIF (84%) was similar and had no statistical significance. All health-related quality of life (Oswestry Disability Index, utility, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale) significantly improved compared with preoperative scores (P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences between the LLIF and PLIF groups (P > 0.05). The total lifetime cost of LLIF was less than that of PLIF (15,355 vs 16,500 USD). Compared with PLIF, LLIF was cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with a net monetary benefit of 539.76 USD.
CONCLUSIONS: LLIF with TCP + IBG demonstrated excellent radiographic and comparable clinical health-related outcomes compared with PLIF. In economic evaluation, the total lifetime cost was lower in LLIF with TCP + IBG than in PLIF. Furthermore, LLIF with TCP + IBG was cost-effective compared with PLIF according to the context of Thailand.
CONCLUSIONS: LLIF with less expensive TCP + IBG as bone graft results in better clinical and radiographic outcomes, less lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness compared with PLIF. This suggests that LLIF with TCP + IBG could be utilized in lower- and middle-income countries for treating patients with degenerative disc disease.
METHODS:

BACKGROUND: Governments around the world are considering regulating access to nicotine e-cigarettes to prevent uptake among youth however people that smoke tobacco may use them to assist with smoking cessation. The health and cost implications of regulating e-cigarette use among populations are unknown but have been explored in modelling studies. We reviewed health economic evaluation and simulation modelling studies that assessed long-term consequences and interpret their potential usefulness for decision-makers.
METHODS: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Six databases were searched for modelling studies evaluating population-level e-cigarette control policies or interventions restricting e-cigarette use versus more liberalized use. Studies were required to report the outcomes of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and/or healthcare costs. The quality of the studies was assessed using two quality assessment tools.
RESULTS: In total, 15 studies were included with nine for the United States and one each for the United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Canada, and New Zealand. Three studies included cost-utility analyses. Most studies involved health state transition (or Markov) closed cohort models. Many studies had limitations with their model structures, data input quality and transparency, and insufficient analyses handling model uncertainty. Findings were mixed with 11 studies concluding that policies permitting e-cigarette use lead to net benefits and 4 studies concluding net losses in life-years or QALYs and/or healthcare costs.Five studies had industry conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSIONS: While authors did conclude net benefit than net harm in more of the studies so far conducted, the significant limitations that we identified with many of the studies in this review, make it uncertain whether or not countries can expect net population harms or benefits of restrictive versus unrestrictive e-cigarette policies. The generalizability of the findings is limited for decision-makers. In light of the deep uncertainty around the health and economic outcomes of e-cigarettes, simulation modelling methods and uncertainty analyses should be strengthened.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year.
METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function.
RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function).
CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec.
BACKGROUND: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.