Cost effectiveness of complementary treatments in the United Kingdom: systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Canter PH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1255794 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Cost effectiveness of complementary treatments in the United Kingdom: systematic review.
Canter Peter H PH Coon Joanna Thompson JT Ernst Edzard E
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20051001 7521
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNumerous therapies have recently emerged for treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a common skin disease, and understanding their cost-effectiveness is of high importance for policy makers. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to provide an overview of full economic evaluations that assessed cost-effectiveness of emerging AD treatments.MethodsThe SLR was conducted in Medline, Embase, UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and EconLit. Reports published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health were manually searched. Economic evaluations published from 2017 to September 2022 that compared emerging AD treatments with any comparator were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list.ResultsA total of 1333 references were screened after removing duplicates. Among those references, 15 that conducted a total of 24 comparisons were included. Most studies were from the USA, UK or Canada. Seven different emerging treatments were compared, mostly with usual care. In 15 comparisons (63%), the emerging treatment was cost-effective, and 11 out of 14 dupilumab comparisons (79%) reported that dupilumab was cost-effective. Upadacitinib was the only emerging therapy that was never classified as cost-effective. On average, 13 out of 19 quality criteria (68%) per reference were rated as fulfilled while manuscripts and health technology reports received generally higher quality assessment scores than published abstracts.DiscussionThis study revealed some discrepancies in the cost-effectiveness of emerging therapies for AD. A variety of designs and guidelines made comparison difficult. Therefore, we recommend that future economic evaluations use more similar modelling approaches to improve comparability of results.OthersThe protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343993).
| S-EPMC10570180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.MethodsWe used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.ResultsFor clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.ConclusionsGefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.
| S-EPMC9241581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Knee pain is common in adolescents and adults and is associated with an increased risk of developing knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this systematic review was to gather and appraise the cost-effectiveness of treatment approaches for non-osteoarthritic knee pain conditions. METHOD:A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016050683). The literature search was done in MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Study selection was carried out by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using a customized extraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS:Fifteen studies were included. The majority regarded the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, but we also identified studies evaluating other knee pain conditions such as meniscus injuries, cartilage defects, and patellofemoral pain syndrome. Study interventions were categorized as surgical or non-surgical interventions. The surgical interventions included ACL reconstruction, chondrocyte implantation, meniscus scaffold procedure, meniscal allograft transplantation, partial meniscectomy, microfracture, and different types of autografts and allografts. The non-surgical management consisted of physical therapy, rehabilitation, exercise, counselling, bracing, and advice. In general, for ACL injuries surgical management alone or in combination with rehabilitation appeared to be cost-effective. The quality of the economic evaluations was of moderate to high quality. CONCLUSION:There was insufficient evidence to give a firm overview of cost-effective interventions for non-osteoarthritic knee pain, but surgical treatment of acute ACL injury appeared cost-effective. There is very little data regarding the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for non-traumatic knee conditions.
| S-EPMC6300294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe literature on the cost-effectiveness of statin drugs in primary prevention of coronary heart disease is complex. The objective of this study is to compare the disparate results of recent cost-effectiveness analyses of statins.FindingsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on statin cost-effectiveness. The four studies that met inclusion criteria reported varying conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of statin treatment, without a clear consensus as to whether statins are cost-effective for primary prevention. However, after accounting for each study's assumptions about statin costs, we found substantial agreement among the studies. Studies that assumed statins to be more expensive found them to be less cost-effective, and vice-versa. Furthermore, treatment of low-risk groups became cost-effective as statins became less expensive.ConclusionsDrug price is the primary determinant of statin cost-effectiveness within a given risk group. As more statin drugs become generic, patients at low risk for coronary disease may be treated cost-effectively. Though many factors must be weighed in any medical decision, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, statins may now be considered an appropriate therapy for many patients at low risk for heart disease.
| S-EPMC3444438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the burden of varicella, there is no universal varicella vaccination (UVV) program in the United Kingdom (UK) due to concerns that it could increase herpes zoster (HZ) incidence. We assessed the cost-utility of a first-dose monovalent (varicella [V]) or quadrivalent (measles-mumps-rubella-varicella [MMRV]) followed by a second-dose MMRV UVV program. GSK and MSD varicella-containing vaccines (VCVs) were considered.MethodsDynamic transmission and cost-effectiveness models were adapted to the UK. Outcomes measured included varicella and HZ incidences and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICURs) over a lifetime horizon. Payer and societal perspectives were evaluated.ResultsThe impact of V-MMRV and MMRV-MMRV UVV programs on varicella incidence was comparable between both VCVs at equilibrium. HZ incidence increased by 1.6%-1.7% over 7 years after UVV start, regardless of the strategies, then decreased by >95% at equilibrium. ICURs ranged from £5665 (100 years) to £18 513 (20 years) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with V-MMRV and from £9220 to £27 101 per QALY gained with MMRV-MMRV (payer perspective). MMRV-MMRV was cost-effective in the medium- and long-terms with GSK VCV and only cost-effective in the long term with MSD VCV at a £20 000 per QALY gained threshold. Without the exogenous boosting hypothesis, HZ incidence decreased through UVV implementation. ICURs were most sensitive to discount rates and MMRV price.ConclusionsA 2-dose UVV was demonstrated to be a cost-effective alternative to no vaccination. With comparable effectiveness as MSD VCV at lower costs, GSK VCV may offer higher value for the money.
| S-EPMC8664478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the United Kingdom (UK), both the MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose QIV (QIV-HD) are preferred for persons aged 65 years and older but only aQIV is reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS). The objective was to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults aged 65 years and above with aQIV compared with QIV-HD in the UK. A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the impact of vaccination in 10 influenza seasons. Vaccine effectiveness was based on a meta-analysis that concluded the vaccines were not significantly different. Vaccine coverage, physician visits, hospitalizations, deaths, utility losses and NHS costs were estimated using published UK sources. The list price of aQIV was £11.88 while a range of prices were tested for QIV-HD. The price of the trivalent high-dose vaccine (TIV-HD) is £20.00 but a list price for QIV-HD is not yet available. The projected differences between the vaccines in terms of clinical cases and influenza treatment costs are minimal. Our analysis demonstrates that in order to be cost-effective, the price of QIV-HD must be similar to that of aQIV and may range from £7.57 to £12.94 depending on the relative effectiveness of the vaccines. The results of the analysis were most sensitive to variation in vaccine effectiveness and the rate of hospitalization due to influenza. Given the evidence, aQIV is cost-saving unless QIV-HD is priced lower than the existing list price of TIV-HD.
| S-EPMC8828088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.
| S-EPMC4082932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReducing delays along the acute stroke pathway significantly improves clinical outcomes for acute ischemic stroke patients eligible for reperfusion treatments. The economic impact of different strategies reducing onset to treatment (OTT) is crucial information for stakeholders in acute stroke management. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview on the cost-effectiveness of several strategies to reduce OTT.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science until January 2022. Studies were included if they reported 1/ stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis and/or endovascular thrombectomy, 2/ full economic evaluation, and 3/ strategies to reduce OTT. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement was applied to assess the reporting quality.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria, of which thirteen were based on cost-utility analysis with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained as the primary outcome. Studies were performed in twelve countries focusing on four main strategies: educational interventions, organizational models, healthcare delivery infrastructure, and workflow improvements. Sixteen studies showed that the strategies concerning educational interventions, telemedicine between hospitals, mobile stroke units, and workflow improvements, were cost-effective in different settings. The healthcare perspective was predominantly used, and the most common types of models were decision trees, Markov models and simulation models. Overall, fourteen studies were rated as having high reporting quality (79%-94%).ConclusionsA wide range of strategies aimed at reducing OTT is cost-effective in acute stroke care treatment. Existing pathways and local characteristics need to be taken along in assessing proposed improvements.
| S-EPMC10064746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsContinuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) are a recommended treatment by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence England for end-stage heart failure patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation. Despite the fact that DT is frequently used as an LVAD indication across other major European countries and the United States, with consistent improvements in quality-of-life and longevity, National Health Service (NHS) England does not currently fund DT, mainly due to concerns over cost-effectiveness. On the basis of the recently published ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial studying DT patients, we assessed for the first time the cost-effectiveness of DT LVADs compared with medical management (MM) in the NHS England.Methods and resultsWe developed a Markov multiple-state economic model using NHS cost data. LVAD survival and adverse event rates were derived from the ENDURANCE Supplemental Trial. MM survival was based on Seattle Heart Failure Model estimates in the absence of contemporary clinical trials for this population. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. A discount rate of 3.5% per year was applied to costs and benefits. Deterministic ICER was £46 207 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Costs and utilities were £204 022 and 3.27 QALYs for the LVAD arm vs. £77 790 and 0.54 QALYs for the MM arm. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of the primary analysis.ConclusionsThe implantation of the HeartWare™ HVAD™ System in patients ineligible for cardiac transplantation as DT is a cost-effective therapy in the NHS England healthcare system under the end-of-life willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000/QALY, which applies for VAD patients.
| S-EPMC8318455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsPazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.
| S-EPMC5479501 | biostudies-literature