Cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in Canada (OASIS-5).

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to a spectrum of life-threatening cardiac diseases usually due to coronary artery plaque rupture, subsequent thrombin generation plaque activation and thrombus formation. To date, no economic analyses have been published about the use of fondaparinux in NSTE-ACS patients in Canada. The purpose of our study is to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux compared to enoxaparin for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients in a Canadian hospital setting. METHODS: As an extension of a previous published economic analysis for US patients, an event-based decision analytic model was constructed using clinical and resource use data from OASIS-5, a randomized trial of 20,078 patients from 41 countries. A public payer perspective in the hospital setting was adopted. Resource use data from the trial were valued using Canadian costs. A cost regression model was developed to estimate the mean cost of managing the clinical events over the 180 day period. Annual costs of long-term care for ACS patients were added after 180 days until death. Long-term survival was incorporated using Canadian life tables with further adjustment for additional risks associated with NSTE-ACS. Quality-of-life (utility) decrements from published sources were applied to clinical events. Lifetime costs (2009 CAD$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted annually at 5 %, were estimated for the typical patient in OASIS-5 (i.e., at mean covariate values). RESULTS: The trial data showed that fondaparinux is protective against all clinical events observed in the trial. The model showed that: over 180 days, fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin, producing similar estimates of QALYs gained and saving $439; over a patient's lifetime, fondaparinux yields an ICER of $4293/QALY. Based on PSA, the probabilities that fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin (less costly and more effective) and that is cost-effective at a $50,000 threshold were 42 % and 96 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the Canadian hospital setting, fondaparinux is cost-effective when compared to enoxaparin for the treatment of NSTE-ACS. This result holds both in the immediate post-event period and over the lifetimes of patients.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm based on four randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A number of published economic evaluations of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have come to differing conclusions about whether EVAR is cost-effective. This paper reviews the current evidence base and presents up-to-date cost-effectiveness analyses in the light of results of four randomized clinical trials: EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE. METHODS: Markov models were used to estimate lifetime costs from a UK perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the results of each of the four trials. The outcomes included in the model were: procedure costs, surveillance costs, reintervention costs, health-related quality of life, aneurysm-related mortality and other-cause mortality. Alternative scenarios about complications, reinterventions and deaths beyond the trial were explored. RESULTS: Models based on the results of the EVAR-1, DREAM or ACE trials did not find EVAR to be cost-effective at thresholds used in the UK (up to £30,000 per QALY). EVAR seemed cost-effective according to models based on the OVER trial. These results seemed robust to alternative model scenarios about events beyond the trial intervals. CONCLUSION: These analyses did not find that EVAR is cost-effective compared with open repair in the long term in trials conducted in European centres. EVAR did appear to be cost-effective based on the OVER trial, conducted in the USA. Caution must be exercised when transferring the results of economic evaluations from one country to another.

Cost-effectiveness of childhood influenza vaccination in England and Wales: Results from a dynamic transmission model.

This study uses a dynamic influenza transmission model to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of various policies of annual paediatric influenza vaccination in England and Wales, varying the target age range and level of coverage. The model accounts for both the protection of those immunised and the indirect protection of the rest of the population via herd immunity. The impact of augmenting current practice with a policy to vaccinate pre-school age children, on their own or with school age children, was assessed in terms of quality adjusted life years and health service costs. Vaccinating 2-18 year olds was estimated to be the most cost-effective policy in an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, at an assumed annual vaccine uptake rate of 50%. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for this policy was estimated at £251/QALY relative to current practice. Paediatric vaccination would appear to be a highly cost-effective intervention that directly protects those targeted for vaccination, with indirect protection extending to both the very young and the elderly.

The UK EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) trials: randomised trials of EVAR versus standard therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) against standard alternative management in patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: Two national, multicentre randomised trials - EVAR trials 1 and 2. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 38 out of 41 eligible UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged at least 60 years, with an AAA measuring at least 5.5 cm on a computerised tomography scan that was regarded as anatomically suitable for EVAR, were assessed for fitness for open repair. Patients considered fit were randomised to EVAR or open repair in EVAR trial 1 and patients considered unfit were randomised to EVAR or no intervention in EVAR trial 2. INTERVENTIONS: EVAR, open repair or no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality (operative, all-cause and AAA related). Patients were flagged at the UK Office for National Statistics with centrally coded death certificates assessed by an Endpoints Committee. Power calculations based upon mortality indicated that 900 and 280 patients were required for EVAR trials 1 and 2, respectively. Secondary outcomes were graft-related complications and reinterventions, adverse events, renal function, health-related quality of life and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed for both trials. RESULTS: Recruitment occurred between 1 September 1999 and 31 August 2004, with targets exceeded in both trials: 1252 randomised into EVAR trial 1 (626 to EVAR) and 404 randomised into EVAR trial 2 (197 to EVAR). Follow-up closed in December 2009 with very little loss to follow-up (1%). In EVAR trial 1, 30-day operative mortalities were 1.8% and 4.3% in the EVAR and open-repair groups, respectively: adjusted odds ratio 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.87], p = 0.02. During a total of 6904 person-years of follow-up, 524 deaths occurred (76 AAA related). Overall, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of all-cause mortality: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.23), p = 0.72. The EVAR group did demonstrate an early advantage in terms of AAA-related mortality, which was sustained for the first few years, but lost by the end of the study, primarily due to fatal endograft ruptures: adjusted HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.49), p = 0.73. The EVAR procedure was more expensive than open repair (mean difference £1177) and not found to be cost-effective, but the model was sensitive to alternative assumptions. In EVAR trial 2, during a total of 1413 person-years of follow-up, a total of 305 deaths occurred (78 AAA related). The 30-day operative mortality was 7.3% in the EVAR group. However, this group later demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of AAA-related mortality, but this became apparent only after 4 years: overall adjusted HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.89), p = 0.02. Sadly, this advantage did not result in any benefit in terms of all-cause mortality: adjusted HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.27), p = 0.97. Overall, EVAR was more expensive than no intervention (mean difference £10,222) and not found to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR offers a clear operative mortality benefit over open repair in patients fit for both procedures, but this early benefit is not translated into a long-term survival advantage. Among patients unfit for open repair, EVAR is associated with a significant long-term reduction in AAA-related mortality but this does not appear to influence all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 55703451. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 9. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

The cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: A comparison of no chemotherapy and first, second, and third generation regimens for patients with differing prognoses.

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrence following surgery in women with early breast cancer varies, depending upon prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy reduces this risk; however, increasingly effective regimens are associated with higher costs and toxicity profiles, making it likely that different regimens may be cost-effective for women with differing prognoses. To investigate this we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of four treatment strategies: (1) no chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy using cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) (a first generation regimen), (3) chemotherapy using Epirubicin-CMF (E-CMF) or fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC60) (a second generation regimens), and (4) chemotherapy with FEC60 followed by docetaxel (FEC-D) (a third generation regimen). These adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were used in three large UK-led randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the natural progression of early breast cancer and the impact of chemotherapy on modifying this process. The probability of a first recurrent event within the model was estimated for women with different prognostic risk profiles using a parametric regression-based survival model incorporating established prognostic factors. Other probabilities, treatment effects, costs and quality of life weights were estimated primarily using data from the three UK-led RCTs, a meta-analysis of all relevant RCTs, and other published literature. The model predicted the lifetime costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness of the four strategies for women with differing prognoses. Sensitivity analyses investigated the impact of uncertain parameters and model assumptions. FINDINGS: For women with an average to high risk of recurrence (based upon prognostic factors and any other adjuvant therapies received), FEC-D appeared most cost-effective assuming a threshold of £20,000 per QALY for the National Health Service (NHS). For younger low risk women, E-CMF/FEC60 tended to be the optimal strategy and, for some older low risk women, the model suggested a policy of no chemotherapy was cost-effective. For no patient group was CMF chemotherapy the preferred option. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost-effectiveness results to be particularly sensitive to the treatment effect estimate for FEC-D and the future price of docetaxel. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this analysis is the first cost-effectiveness comparison of no chemotherapy, and first, second, and third generation adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer patients with differing prognoses. The results demonstrate the potential for different treatment strategies to be cost-effective for different types of patients. These findings may prove useful for policy makers attempting to formulate cost-effective treatment guidelines in the field of early breast cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome based on the RITA 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that an early interventional strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can improve health outcomes but also increase costs when compared with a conservative strategy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of an early interventional strategy in different risk groups from a UK health-service perspective. DESIGN: Decision-analytic model based on randomised clinical trial data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs in UK Sterling at 2003/2004 prices and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) combined into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. METHODS: Data from the third Randomised Intervention Trial of unstable Angina (RITA 3) was employed to estimate rates of cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction, costs and health-related quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was estimated over patients' lifetimes within the decision-analytic model. RESULTS: The mean incremental cost per QALY gained for an early interventional strategy was approximately 55,000 pounds sterling, 22,000 pounds sterling and 12,000 pounds sterling for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The early interventional strategy is approximately 1%, 35% and 95% likely to be cost-effective for patients at low, intermediate and high risk, respectively, at a threshold of 20,000 pounds sterling per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of early intervention in low-risk patients is sensitive to assumptions about the duration of the treatment effect. CONCLUSION: An early interventional strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS is likely to be considered cost-effective for patients at high and intermediate risk, but this is less likely to be the case for patients at low risk.

Modelling the long-term cost-effectiveness of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have shown that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has a 3 per cent aneurysm-related survival benefit in patients fit for open surgery, but it also has uncertain long-term outcomes and higher costs. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EVAR. METHODS: A decision model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with EVAR and open repair in men aged 74 years. The model includes the risks of death from aneurysm, other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, secondary reinterventions and non-fatal cardiovascular events. Data were taken largely from the EVAR trial 1 and supplemented from other sources. RESULTS: Under the base-case (primary) assumptions, EVAR cost 3800 pounds sterling (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 2400 pounds sterling to 5200 pounds sterling) more per patient than open repair but produced fewer lifetime QALYs (mean -0.020 (95 per cent c.i. -0.189 to 0.165)). These results were sensitive to alternative model assumptions. CONCLUSION: EVAR is unlikely to be cost-effective on the basis of existing devices, costs and evidence, but there remains considerable uncertainty.

The cost-effectiveness of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have been shown to improve the outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We assess the cost-effectiveness of two TNF antagonists and so-called 'palliative care' for the treatment of active PsA from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesize evidence from three Phase III trials, identified through a systematic review, and estimate the relative efficacy of etanercept, infliximab and palliative care. A probabilistic decision analytic model was then used to compare these treatments after the failure of at least two conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), following the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guidelines for use. The primary outcome measure, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), was derived from utility values estimated as a function of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). The deterioration experienced in HAQ at treatment withdrawal (rebound) was incorporated using alternative scenarios to represent best- and worst-case assumptions. The model was extended beyond the trial duration to a 10-yr and lifetime horizon, using available evidence and expert opinion-based assumptions on disease progression. Resource utilization was based on literature, national databases and expert opinion. Prices were obtained from routine NHS sources and published literature. RESULTS: At a 10-yr time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etanercept compared with palliative care was pound sterling26 361 per QALY gained for the best-case rebound scenario, which increased to pound sterling30 628 for the worst-case. The ICERs for infliximab compared with etanercept were pound sterling165 363 and pound sterling205 345 per QALY, respectively. These findings are mainly explained by the fact that infliximab has higher acquisition and administration costs without substantially superior effectiveness compared with etanercept. Results were sensitive to estimates of rebound assumptions at withdrawal and the time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Only results for etanercept remained within the range of cost-effectiveness estimates considered to represent value for money in the NHS by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Further research appears most valuable in relation to the short-term effectiveness, utility parameters and assumptions regarding the effect of rebound.

Cost effectiveness of clinically appropriate decisions on alternative treatments for angina pectoris: prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether revascularisation that is considered to be clinically appropriate is also cost effective. DESIGN: Prospective observational study comparing cost effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or medical management within groups of patients rated as appropriate for revascularisation. SETTING: Three tertiary care centres in London. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive, unselected patients rated as clinically appropriate (using a nine member Delphi panel) to receive coronary artery bypass grafting only (n=815); percutaneous coronary intervention only (n=385); or both revascularisation procedures (n=520). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cost per quality adjusted life year gained over six year follow-up, calculated with a National Health Service cost perspective and discounted at 3.5%/year. RESULTS: Coronary artery bypass grafting cost 22,000 pounds sterling (33,000 euros; $43,000) per quality adjusted life year gained compared with percutaneous coronary intervention among patients appropriate for coronary artery bypass grafting only (59% probability of being cost effective at a cost effectiveness threshold of 30,000 pounds sterling per quality adjusted life year) and 19,000 pounds sterling per quality adjusted life year gained compared with medical management among those appropriate for both types of revascularisation (probability of being cost effective 63%). In none of the three appropriateness groups was percutaneous coronary intervention cost effective at a threshold of 30,000 pounds sterling per quality adjusted life year. Among patients rated appropriate for percutaneous coronary intervention only, the cost per quality adjusted life year gained for percutaneous coronary intervention compared with medical management was 47,000, pounds sterling exceeding usual cost effectiveness thresholds; in these patients, medical management was most likely to be cost effective (probability 54%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients judged clinically appropriate for coronary revascularisation, coronary artery bypass grafting seemed cost effective but percutaneous coronary intervention did not. Cost effectiveness analysis based on observational data suggests that the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention may not be sufficient to justify its cost.

Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review, and to develop further, the methods used to assess and to increase the generalisability of economic evaluation studies. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: Methodological studies relating to economic evaluation in healthcare were searched. This included electronic searches of a range of databases, including PREMEDLINE, MEDLINE, EMBASE and EconLit, and manual searches of key journals. The case studies of a decision analytic model involved highlighting specific features of previously published economic studies related to generalisability and location-related variability. The case-study involving the secondary analysis of cost-effectiveness analyses was based on the secondary analysis of three economic studies using data from randomised trials. RESULTS: The factor most frequently cited as generating variability in economic results between locations was the unit costs associated with particular resources. In the context of studies based on the analysis of patient-level data, regression analysis has been advocated as a means of looking at variability in economic results across locations. These methods have generally accepted that some components of resource use and outcomes are exchangeable across locations. Recent studies have also explored, in cost-effectiveness analysis, the use of tests of heterogeneity similar to those used in clinical evaluation in trials. The decision analytic model has been the main means by which cost-effectiveness has been adapted from trial to non-trial locations. Most models have focused on changes to the cost side of the analysis, but it is clear that the effectiveness side may also need to be adapted between locations. There have been weaknesses in some aspects of the reporting in applied cost-effectiveness studies. These may limit decision-makers' ability to judge the relevance of a study to their specific situations. The case study demonstrated the potential value of multilevel modelling (MLM). Where clustering exists by location (e.g. centre or country), MLM can facilitate correct estimates of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness results, and also a means of estimating location-specific cost-effectiveness. The review of applied economic studies based on decision analytic models showed that few studies were explicit about their target decision-maker(s)/jurisdictions. The studies in the review generally made more effort to ensure that their cost inputs were specific to their target jurisdiction than their effectiveness parameters. Standard sensitivity analysis was the main way of dealing with uncertainty in the models, although few studies looked explicitly at variability between locations. The modelling case study illustrated how effectiveness and cost data can be made location-specific. In particular, on the effectiveness side, the example showed the separation of location-specific baseline events and pooled estimates of relative treatment effect, where the latter are assumed exchangeable across locations. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of factors are mentioned in the literature that might be expected to generate variation in the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions across locations. Several papers have demonstrated differences in the volume and cost of resource use between locations, but few studies have looked at variability in outcomes. In applied trial-based cost-effectiveness studies, few studies provide sufficient evidence for decision-makers to establish the relevance or to adjust the results of the study to their location of interest. Very few studies utilised statistical methods formally to assess the variability in results between locations. In applied economic studies based on decision models, most studies either stated their target decision-maker/jurisdiction or provided sufficient information from which this could be inferred. There was a greater tendency to ensure that cost inputs were specific to the target jurisdiction than clinical parameters. Methods to assess generalisability and variability in economic evaluation studies have been discussed extensively in the literature relating to both trial-based and modelling studies. Regression-based methods are likely to offer a systematic approach to quantifying variability in patient-level data. In particular, MLM has the potential to facilitate estimates of cost-effectiveness, which both reflect the variation in costs and outcomes between locations and also enable the consistency of cost-effectiveness estimates between locations to be assessed directly. Decision analytic models will retain an important role in adapting the results of cost-effectiveness studies between locations. Recommendations for further research include: the development of methods of evidence synthesis which model the exchangeability of data across locations and allow for the additional uncertainty in this process; assessment of alternative approaches to specifying multilevel models to the analysis of cost-effectiveness data alongside multilocation randomised trials; identification of a range of appropriate covariates relating to locations (e.g. hospitals) in multilevel models; and further assessment of the role of econometric methods (e.g. selection models) for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside observational datasets, and to increase the generalisability of randomised trials.

Measuring costs and consequences in economic evaluation in asthma.

Formal economic evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in health-care decision-making. This is shown by the requirement to present economic data to support applications for public reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in Australia and the provinces of Canada, and by the appraisal process initiated by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the U.K. This growing role of economic analysis applies as much to the field of asthma as anywhere. This paper provides a detailed review of applied economic studies in asthma. The review is used to explore a range of methodological issues in the field including the choice of perspective and maximand, whether to use disease-specific or generic measures of outcome and whether decision-makers should receive disaggregated cost and consequence data or results that focus on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It is concluded that, given the heterogeneity in decision-makers' objectives and constraints, economic studies should be planned and executed in such a way as to maximize flexibility in how results are presented.

Assessment of the technology for functional imaging in cancer.

Functional imaging can address hitherto irresolvable questions about cancer biology in both research and practice. In the clinic, by combining features of systemic and local disease markers into reference standards for the diagnosis of new disease entities functional imaging has the potential to literally redefine illness. Clinical assessments can be conducted at two levels: establishment of new reference standards, and evaluation of successor technologies that will substitute for a reference standard in practice. A union of functional imaging with anatomical criteria of disease has shown great promise in the management of numerous cancers. More work is required to use functional imaging to develop 'functional' approaches to diagnosis and therapy. Many methodologies exist for the acquisition of primary data on imaging technology efficacy. A form of economic cost-effectiveness modelling called iterative decision analysis can be used to set research and service priorities. Cancer clinicians need to take an increased role in functional imaging research, as they have primary expertise in the development and use of treatments modifying cell and tissue function.

Low doses vs. high doses of the angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in chronic heart failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival (ATLAS) study. The ATLAS Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: A cost-effectiveness analysis of high and low doses of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril in the treatment of chronic heart failure. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a randomized controlled trial, ATLAS, where 3164 patients with chronic heart failure were allocated to a high-dose (daily target dose 32.5-35 mg) or low-dose strategy (daily target dose 2.5-5.0 mg) of lisinopril. Differential costs were based on resource use data collected in the trial costed using UK unit costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis related differential costs to differential life-years during a 4-year trial follow-up. RESULTS: The mean total number of hospital in-patient days per patient was 18. 5 in the high dose group and 22.5 in the low dose group. Over the whole duration of the trial, the mean (S.D.) daily dose of lisinopril in the high-dose group was 22.5 mg (15.7 mg) compared to 3.2 mg (2.5 mg) in the low-dose group. The mean difference in cost per patient was pound sterling 397 lower in the high-dose group [95% CI (high-dose-low-dose) - pound sterling 1263 to pound sterling 436]. Mean life-years per patient were 0.085 years higher in the high-dose group [95% CI (high-dose-low-dose) -0.0074 to 0.1706). Based on mean costs and life-years, high-dose therapy dominates low-dose (less costly and more effective). Allowing for uncertainty in mean costs and life-years, the probability of high-dose therapy being less costly than low dose was 82%. If a decision maker is willing to pay at least pound sterling 3600 per life-year gained, the probability of high-dose being more cost-effective was 92%. CONCLUSIONS: The ATLAS Study showed that the treatment of heart failure with high-doses of lisinopril has a high probability of being more cost-effective than low-dose therapy.

Economic issues in the prevention of vertical transmission of HIV.

In the absence of interventions, 20% of infants born to women infected with HIV acquire infection from their mother at or before delivery. A further 15% are infected through breast feeding. Prenatal testing for HIV allows infected women to be reliably identified so that they can receive antiretroviral therapy and, in countries with safe water supplies, be advised not to breast feed. These and other interventions can reduce the risk of transmission to 5% or less. Economic evaluations of prenatal testing for HIV are reviewed and compared in this article, and future research priorities outlined. These studies set the costs of testing and intervention against the averted lifetime costs of paediatric infection, and generate estimates of the HIV prevalence threshold above which there would be a net cost saving, or calculate the cost per life-year saved given a particular prevalence. In the developed world, prenatal testing has been adopted in many countries, and recent economic analyses broadly support this. Future research is likely to focus on the incremental benefits of different antiretroviral regimens in lowering transmission rates still further, with or without elective caesarean section, and the possibility that some may lead to adverse effects in uninfected infants exposed to them in utero. Some earlier assessments in resource-poor settings concluded that prenatal testing was unaffordable or of doubtful cost effectiveness. This negative conclusion appears to be the result of very low estimates of the lifetime costs of paediatric HIV infection, together with developed world conceptions of pre-test counselling. The demonstration that nevirapine reduces transmission risk at a low cost has transformed the outlook, and there is hope that antiretrovirals can act prophylactically to prevent infection of the breast-fed child. However, to achieve a sustained reduction in vertical transmission there may be a need to evaluate the need for a strengthened infrastructure to deliver prenatal HIV testing and treatment, as well as programmes to reduce HIV incidence in adults.

Building uncertainty into cost-effectiveness rankings: portfolio risk-return tradeoffs and implications for decision rules.

BACKGROUND: Current principles of cost-effectiveness analysis emphasize the rank ordering of programs by expected economic return (eg, quality-adjusted life-years gained per dollar expended). This criterion ignores the variance associated with the cost-effectiveness of a program, yet variance is a common measure of risk when financial investment options are appraised. Variation in health care program return is likely to be a criterion of program selection for health care managers with fixed budgets and outcome performance targets. METHODS: Characterizing health care resource allocation as a risky investment problem, we show how concepts of portfolio analysis from financial economics can be adopted as a conceptual framework for presenting cost-effectiveness data from multiple programs as mean-variance data. RESULTS: Two specific propositions emerge: (1) the current convention of ranking programs by expected return is a special case of the portfolio selection problem in which the decision maker is assumed to be indifferent to risk, and (2) for risk-averse decision makers, the degree of joint risk or covariation in cost-effectiveness between programs will create incentives to diversify an investment portfolio. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional normative assumption of risk neutrality for social-level public investment decisions does not apply to a large number of health care resource allocation decisions in which health care managers seek to maximize returns subject to budget constraints and performance targets. Portfolio theory offers a useful framework for studying mean-variance tradeoffs in cost-effectiveness and offers some positive predictions (and explanations) of actual decision making in the health care sector.

Income effects of reduced health and health effects of reduced income: implications for health-state valuation.

There is increasing use of multiattribute health-state utility systems, such as the Health Utilities Index and the EuroQol (now EQ-5D), to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for cost-utility analysis. Whereas the preferences elicited from individuals using willingness-to-pay techniques for cost-benefit analysis would be expected to reflect those individuals' income levels, it is often suggested that cost-utility analysis can avoid this income effect by not valuing health in monetary terms. Contrary to this view, the authors argue that income can influence the measurement of utilities used to estimate QALYs. In the context of multiattribute utility instruments, two income effects can take place: 1) when individuals are asked to value health states to generate the set of utilities to apply in subsequent evaluation studies; 2) when those multiattribute systems are used to categorize individuals' (usually patients') health status in the field in applied evaluation studies. The authors review the most popular utility systems regarding how these income effects are handled and assess the implications for the measurement of utilities using these systems.

Cost effectiveness analysis of antenatal HIV screening in United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of universal antenatal HIV screening compared with selective screening in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Incremental cost effectiveness analysis relating additional costs of screening to life years gained. Maternal and paediatric costs and life years were combined. SETTING: United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of districts for which universal screening would be cost effective compared with selective screening under various conditions. RESULTS: On base case assumptions, a new diagnosis of a pregnant woman with HIV results in a gain of 6.392 life years and additional expenditure of 14 833 pounds. If decision makers are prepared to pay up to 10 000 pounds an additional life year, this would imply a net benefit of 49 090 pounds (range 12 300 pounds- 59 000 pounds), which would be available to detect each additional infected woman in an antenatal screening programme. In London, universal antenatal screening would be cost effective compared with a selective screening under any reasonable assumptions about screening costs. Outside London, universal screening with uptake above 90% would be cost effective with a 0.60 pounds HIV antibody test cost and up to 3.5 minutes for pretest discussion. Cost effectiveness of universal testing is lower if selective testing can achieve high uptake among those at higher risk. A universal strategy with only 50% uptake may not be less cost effective in low prevalence districts and may cost more and be less effective than a well run selective strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening with pretest discussion should be adopted throughout the United Kingdom as part of routine antenatal care as long as test costs can be kept low and uptake high.