AI for BPH Surgical Decision-Making: Cost Effectiveness and Outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is prevalent in nearly 70% of men over the age of 60, leading to significant clinical challenges due to varying symptom presentations and treatment responses. The decision to undergo surgical intervention is not straightforward; the American Urological Association recommends consideration of surgical treatment after inadequate or failed response to medical therapy. This review explores the role of artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning and deep learning models, in enhancing the decision-making processes for BPH management. RECENT FINDINGS: AI applications in this space include analysis of non-invasive imaging modalities, such as multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ultrasound, which enhance diagnostic precision. AI models also concatenate serum biomarkers and histopathological analysis to distinguish BPH from prostate cancer (PC), offering high accuracy rates. Furthermore, AI aids in predicting patient outcomes post-treatment, supporting personalized medicine, and optimizing therapeutic strategies. AI has demonstrated potential in differentiating BPH from PC through advanced imaging and predictive models, improving diagnostic accuracy, and reducing the need for invasive procedures. Despite promising advancements, challenges remain in integrating AI into clinical workflows, establishing standard evaluation metrics, and achieving cost-effectiveness. Here, we underscore the potential of AI to improve patient outcomes, streamline BPH management, and reduce healthcare costs, especially with continued research and development in this transformative field.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient's risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery for people with peritoneal metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: We compared the relative benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, gastric or ovarian cancers by a systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based cost-utility analysis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and the Science Citation Index, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trial registers until 14 April 2022. We included only randomised controlled trials addressing the research objectives. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. We used the random-effects model for data synthesis when applicable. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, we performed a model-based cost-utility analysis using methods recommended by The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Results: The systematic review included a total of eight randomised controlled trials (seven randomised controlled trials, 955 participants included in the quantitative analysis). All comparisons other than those for stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer contained only one trial, indicating the paucity of randomised controlled trials that provided data. For colorectal cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (60.6% vs. 60.6%; hazard ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.58) and may increase the serious adverse event proportions compared to cytoreductive surgery ± systemic chemotherapy (25.6% vs. 15.2%; risk ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.77). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to fluorouracil-based systemic chemotherapy alone (40.8% vs. 60.8%; hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.95). For gastric cancer, there is high uncertainty about the effects of hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or systemic chemotherapy alone on all-cause mortality. For stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably decreases all-cause mortality compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy (46.3% vs. 57.4%; hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.93). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy may not be cost-effective versus cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer but may be cost-effective for the remaining comparisons. Limitations: We were unable to obtain individual participant data as planned. The limited number of randomised controlled trials for each comparison and the paucity of data on health-related quality of life mean that the recommendations may change as new evidence (from trials with a low risk of bias) emerges. Conclusions: In people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer with limited peritoneal metastases and who are likely to withstand major surgery, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should not be used in routine clinical practice (strong recommendation). There is considerable uncertainty as to whether hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy or cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (no recommendation). Hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered routinely to women with stage III or greater epithelial ovarian cancer and metastases confined to the abdomen requiring and likely to withstand interval cytoreductive surgery after chemotherapy (strong recommendation). Future work: More randomised controlled trials are necessary. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019130504. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cancers of the bowel, ovary or stomach can spread to the lining of the abdomen ('peritoneal metastases'). Chemotherapy (the use of drugs that aim to kill cancer cells) given by injection or tablets ('systemic chemotherapy') is one of the main treatment options. There is uncertainty about whether adding cytoreductive surgery (cytoreductive surgery; an operation to remove the cancer) and 'hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy' (warm chemotherapy delivered into the lining of the abdomen during cytoreductive surgery) are beneficial. We reviewed all the information from medical literature published until 14 April 2022, to answer the above uncertainty. We found the following from eight trials, including about 1000 participants. In people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably does not provide any benefits and increases harm compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy, while cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy appears to increase survival compared to systemic chemotherapy alone. There is uncertainty about the best treatment for people with peritoneal metastases from stomach cancer. In women with peritoneal metastases from ovarian cancer who require systemic chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery to shrink the cancer to allow surgery ('advanced ovarian cancer'), hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy probably increases survival compared to cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy. In people who can withstand a major operation and in whom cancer can be removed, cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to people with peritoneal metastases from bowel cancer, while hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy + cytoreductive surgery + systemic chemotherapy should be offered to women with peritoneal metastases from 'advanced ovarian cancer'. Uncertainty in treatment continues for gastric cancer. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 51. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Methods: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation employed the fractional polynomial network meta-analysis and partitioned survival model. Costs and utilities were collected from the literature and databases. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainties.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line treatment strategies were $761,371.37 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $206,222.53/QALY in the US and $354,678.79 /QALY or $213,874.22/QALY in China, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were largely consistent with the base case.Conclusion: From the US and Chinese payer perspectives, adding durvalumab or pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost effective in the first-line setting for advanced BTC.

[Box: see text].

Extended Postoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Associated with No Clinical Value and Higher Projected Cost Following Adult Spinal Surgery: A Stratified Meta-Analysis and Probability-Based Cost Projections.

¼ We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of different protocols of extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (E-PAP) following adult spinal surgery.¼ Both stratified (randomized controlled trials only) and nonstratified (all studies) analyses demonstrated that E-PAP has no significant value in reducing the rate of surgical site infection (SSI), deep SSI, or superficial SSI.¼ Notably, the E-PAP protocols were associated with a significant increase in the length of hospital stay, resulting in an additional expenditure of $244.4 per episode for the E-PAP 72 hours protocol compared with PAP 24 hours and $309.8 per episode for the E-PAP >48 hours protocol compared with PAP <48 hours.¼ E-PAP does not demonstrate any significant reduction in the rate of SSIs following spine surgery. However, these extended protocols were significantly associated with an increase in the length of hospital stay and higher overall projected costs.

Cost effectiveness analysis comparing varying booster intervals of vaccination policies to address COVID-19 situation in Thailand, 2023.

The COVID-19 booster immunization policy is cost-effective, but evidence on additional booster doses and appropriate strategies is scarce. This research compared the cost-effectiveness of annual, twice-a-year, and biennial booster dose policies. We performed stochastic modeling using compartmental susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered models and a system dynamic model. We evaluated four policy scenarios: (1) hypothetical no-booster immunization policy; (2) twice-a-year vaccination policy; (3) annual vaccination policy; and (4) biennial vaccination policy. In addition, we conducted a one-way sensitivity analysis by adjusting R0 from 1.8 to 3.0 in all scenarios (epidemic stage) and by decreasing the vaccination cost by 50% at the end of the first year to reflect the current policy direction to enhance domestic vaccine production. Compared to non-booster policies, all three booster strategies reduced the number of cases, hospital admissions, and severe infections remarkably. Without a booster, total cases would reach 16,220,615 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6,726,550-29,661,112) by day 1,460, whereas, with a twice-a-year booster, the total cases would reach 597,901 (95% CI 526,230-694,458) in the same period. Even though the no booster scenario exhibited the lowest cost by approximately the first 500 days, by day 1,460 the biennial booster scenario demonstrated the lowest cost at 72.0 billion baht (95% CI 68.6-79.4 billion). The most cost-saving policy was the biennial booster scenario. The annual booster scenario also stood as a cost-effective option for most outcomes. In the epidemic stage and in an assumption where the vaccination costs dropped, all booster policies became more cost-effective or cost-saving compared with the main assumption. This study underscores the significance of the COVID-19 vaccine booster policy. Implementing policies should take into consideration cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and public communication.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a lung cancer screening program in the netherlands: a simulation based on NELSON and NLST study outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, accounting for more than 10,000 annual deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) studies using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) have demonstrated that early detection reduces lung cancer mortality. However, no LCS program has been implemented yet in the Netherlands. A national LCS program has the potential to enhance the health outcomes for lung cancer patients in the Netherlands. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of LCS compared to no-screening in the Netherlands, by simulating the screening outcomes based on data from NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). We simulated annual screening up to 74 years of age, using inclusion criteria from the respective studies. A decision tree and Markov model was used to predict the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs) for the screening population. The analysis used a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. RESULTS: Compared to no-screening, LCS resulted in an ICER of €5,169 per QALY for the NELSON simulation, and an ICER of €17,119 per QALY for the NLST simulation. The screening costs were highly impactful for the cost-effectiveness. The most influential parameter was the CT scan cost. Cost reduction for CT from €201 to €101 per scan would reduce the ICER to €2,335 using NELSON criteria. Additionally, LCS could prevent 15,115 and 12,611 premature lung cancer deaths, accompanied by 1.66 and 1.31 QALYs gained per lung cancer case for the NELSON and NLST simulations, respectively. CONCLUSION: LCS was estimated to be cost-effective in the Netherlands for both simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY. Using the NELSON criteria, less than €5,500 per QALY had to be spent. Lowering the cost per CT exam would lead to a further reduction of this amount.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario). SETTING: Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149). INTERVENTIONS: App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI -136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity. CONCLUSIONS: From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03798288.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biologic sequential treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: A Malaysian healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: In Malaysia, there is now a dearth of recommendations pertaining to the priority of biologic treatments for the effective management of psoriasis, given the multitude of available therapeutic alternatives. Present analysis reports results of a cost-effectiveness model that determines the most optimal arrangement of biologic treatments, with a particular focus of adding biosimilars to the existing treatment pathway for psoriasis in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of various biologic sequential treatments in a hypothetical cohort of moderate to severe psoriasis patient in Malaysia over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated the progression of patients through three lines of active biologic therapy, before transitioning to best supportive care. Costs and effects were discounted annually at a rate of 3%. RESULTS: First line secukinumab has produced lowest incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) when compared to first line systemic [ICERs value; US$152,474 (first set analysis) and US$110,572 (second set analysis)] and first line phototherapy [ICERs value; US$147,057 (first set analysis) and US$107,616 (second set analysis)]. However, these values were slightly higher than the Malaysian based threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita, US$104,337. A 40% reduction in the unit costs of reference biologics renders most of the evaluated treatment sequences cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Adding biosimilar to the current treatment sequence could achieve cost savings ranging from 4.3% to 10.8% without significant loss of effectiveness. Given the significant impact of comorbidities and the resulting decline in quality of life among individuals with psoriasis, it may be justifiable to establish a threshold of up to US$184,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the provision of therapies in the context of Malaysia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of proximal femoral nail versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a serious public health problem with high rates of morbidity, mortality, disability and care costs. The aim of the research was to perform cost effectiveness analysis of hip fracture treatments using proximal femoral nail and bipolar hemiarthroplasty surgeries. METHODS: The analysis was completed based on the perspectives of the paying institution and patient. A decision tree model was used to determine whether proximal femoral nail or bipolar arthroplasty was most cost effective for the management of a femoral neck fracture in this patient population. RESULTS: The findings from the decision tree model suggested that ICERs for BHP were TRY 43,164.53 TL/QALY based on reimbursement and TRY 3,977.35 TL/QALY based on patient expenditures. Compared to the calculated threshold value of TRY 60.575 TL, we concluded BHP to be a cost-effective option. Moreover, all parameter changes yielded stable results on the one-way sensitivity analysis. When it comes to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, BHP with specified threshold value was found to be cost-effective in all the comparisons. Currently available data the use of bipolar hemiarthroplasty as the more cost- effective treatment strategy in this specific population. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings showed HA as a cost-effective surgical technique at the calculated threshold in a population over 60 years of age. The impacts of HA on patients' quality of life and costs are remarkable.

Point-of-care Testing HbA1c screening for type 2 diabetes in urban and rural areas of China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Point-of-care Testing (POCT) glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a convenient, cheap, effective and accessible screening method for type 2 diabetes in rural areas and community settings that is widely used in the European region and Japan, but not yet widespread in China. The study is the first to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of POCT HbA1c, fasting capillary glucose (FCG), and venous blood HbA1c to screen for type 2 diabetes in urban and rural areas of China, and to identify the best socio-economically beneficial screening strategy. Methods: Based on urban and rural areas in China, economic models for type 2 diabetes screening were constructed from a social perspective. The subjects of this study were adults aged 18-80 years with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Three screening strategies were established for venous blood HbA1c, FCG and POCT HbA1c, and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by Markov models. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed on all parameters of the model to verify the stability of the results. Results: Compared with FCG, POCT HbA1c was cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $500.06/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in urban areas and an ICUR of $185.10/QALY in rural areas, within the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP = $37,653). POCT HbA1c was cost-effective with lower cost and higher utility compared with venous blood HbA1c in both urban and rural areas. In the comparison of venous blood HbA1c and FCG, venous blood HbA1c was cost-effective (ICUR = $20,833/QALY) in urban areas but not in rural areas (ICUR = $41,858/QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were stable and credible. Conclusions: POCT HbA1c was cost-effective for type 2 diabetes screening in both urban and rural areas of China, which could be considered for future clinical practice in China. Factors such as geographic location, local financial situation and resident compliance needed to be considered when making the choice of venous blood HbA1c or FCG.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: This study focuses on assessing the cost-effectiveness of incorporating toripalimab alongside chemotherapy for the treatment of patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the costs and health outcomes over the lifetime of patients with mTNBC. Clinical data regarding overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment-related adverse events were derived from the TORCHLIGHT clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated based on the gains in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the model. Results: The total cost incurred by the group receiving toripalimab was $38,040.62, while the placebo plus chemotherapy was $26,102.07. The utilization of the toripalimab regimen resulted in an increase of 0.74 QALYs and an incremental cost of $11,938.55 compared to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. The ICER was $16,133.18/QALY, indicating that toripalimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy according to the WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of mTNBC is a cost-effective strategy. The findings provide valuable evidence to guide decision-making regarding treatment selection for patients with mTNBC in China.

Protocol of a cost-effectiveness analysis of a combined intervention for depression and parenting compared with enhanced standard of care for perinatally depressed, HIV-positive women and their infants in rural South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Poverty, HIV and perinatal depression represent a triple threat to public health in sub-Saharan Africa because of their combined negative effects on parenting and child development. In the resource-constrained context of low-income and middle-income countries, a lay-counsellor-delivered intervention that combines a psychological and parenting intervention could offer the potential to mitigate the consequences of perinatal depression while also optimising scarce resources for healthcare.Measuring the cost-effectiveness of such a novel intervention will help decision-makers to better understand the relative costs and effects associated with replicating the intervention, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making. This protocol sets out the methodological framework for analysing the cost-effectiveness of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that compares a combined intervention to enhanced standard of care when treating depressed, HIV-positive pregnant women and their infants in rural South Africa. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) protocol complies with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. A societal perspective will be chosen.The proposed methods will determine the cost and efficiency of implementing the intervention as per the randomised control trial protocol, as well as the cost of replicating the intervention in a non-research setting. The costs will be calculated using an appropriately adjusted version of the Standardised Early Childhood Development Costing Tool.Primary health outcomes will be used in combination with costs to determine the cost per improvement in maternal perinatal depression at 12 months postnatal and the cost per improvement in child cognitive development at 24 months of age. To facilitate priority setting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for improvements in child cognitive development will be ranked against six other child cognitive-development interventions according to Verguet et al's methodology (2022).A combination of activity-based and ingredient-based costing approaches will be used to identify, measure and value activities and inputs for all alternatives. Outcomes data will be sourced from the RCT team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Oxford is the sponsor of the CEA. Ethics approval has been obtained from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC, #REC 5/23/08/17), South Africa and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC #31-17), UK.Consent for publication is not applicable since no participant data are used in this protocol.We plan to disseminate the CEA results to key policymakers and researchers in the form of a policy brief, meetings and academic papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ISRCTN registry #11 284 870 (14/11/2017) and SANCTR DOH-27-102020-9097 (17/11/2017).

Advancing spatial repellents for malaria control: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a spatial repellent under operational use in Northern Uganda-study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spatial repellents (SRs) have been widely used for the prevention of mosquito bites, and preliminary findings suggest efficacy against both malaria (1) and Aedes-borne viruses (2) but their effectiveness in reducing mosquito-borne diseases under operational use has never been evaluated. SRs have the potential of being critical tools in the prevention of mosquito-borne diseases in contexts where typical vector control strategies, such as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying, are inaccessible or underutilized such as among displaced persons or in emergency relief settings. METHODS: Children will be enrolled in 3 separate cohorts to establish the effectiveness of SRs in reducing malaria infection in different distribution channels. One cohort will estimate the direct effect of the SR distributed through a reference channel (study personnel distribution). The two remaining cohorts will estimate the protection of the SR distributed through a voucher channel and the Village Health Team channel. Cohorts will be followed twice a month (approximately every 15 days): during the first scheduled household visit in the month, a blood sample will be taken for malaria rapid diagnostic test (Monthly Visit #1); and, during the second scheduled household visit, a blood sample will only be taken if the participant has a recent history of fever (Monthly Visit #2). The incidence of malaria in each cohort will be estimated and compared to the reference cohort to determine the benefit of using a SR in an area with high, year-round transmission of malaria. DISCUSSION: This study will address the knowledge gap of whether or not SRs are effective in reducing human malaria disease in humanitarian assistance and emergency response settings in sub-Saharan Africa where underlying transmission rates are historically high and ITNs may or may not be widely deployed. This research will inform policy makers on whether to recommend SRs as a means to further reduce malaria transmission for such operational programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06122142. Registered on November 8, 2023.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. METHODS: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status. RESULTS: In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

Influenza vaccination for heart failure patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Purpose: Influenza infection induces cardiovascular events in heart failure (HF) patients, with potential risk reduction through vaccination. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for HF patients in China. Methods: We developed a Markov model with a 3-month cycle to simulate the cost-effectiveness of administering the influenza vaccine to patients with HF over a 3-year period. Patients in the model received either the influenza vaccine or a placebo, in addition to standard HF treatment. Cost data, sourced from the China Healthcare Statistic Yearbook and other public records, and effectiveness data from the IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events in HF) trial, were incorporated. Specifically, the cost of the influenza vaccine was 75 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (11 USD), the cost of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) was 9,326 CNY (1,386 USD), and the cost of treatment for pneumonia was 5,984 CNY (889 USD). The study's primary outcome, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantifies the incremental cost (CNY and USD) per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Additional outcomes included total cost, total effectiveness, incremental cost, and incremental effectiveness. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess certainty and uncertainty, respectively. Scenario analysis, considering various situations, was performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. Results: In the base case analysis, influenza vaccine, compared to placebo, among Chinese HF patients, resulted in a cost increase from 21,004 CNY (3,121 USD) to 21,062 CNY (3,130 USD) and in QALYs from 1.89 to 1.92 (2.55 life years vs. 2.57 life years) per patient. The resulting ICER was 2,331 CNY (346 USD) per QALY [2,080 CNY (309 USD) per life year], falling below the willingness-to-pay threshold based on per capita GDP. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that disparities in HHF and cardiovascular death rates between groups had the most significant impact on the ICER, while the cost of vaccines had a marginal impact. PSA and scenario analysis collectively affirmed the robustness of our findings. Conclusion: This study suggests that adding the influenza vaccine to standard treatment regimens for Chinese patients with HF may represent a highly cost-effective option. Further real-world data studies are essential to validate these findings.

Randomized Controlled Trial Based US Commercial Payor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Versus Lifestyle Modification Alone for Adults With Class I/II Obesity.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive day procedure that the MERIT randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated to be an effective and safe method of weight loss versus lifestyle modification alone. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ESG from the perspective of a US commercial payer in a cohort of adults with class II and class I obesity with diabetes based on this RCT. MATERIALS: We used a Markov modelling approach with BMI group health states and an absorbing death state. Baseline characteristics, utilities, BMI group transition probabilities, and adverse events (AEs) were informed by patient-level data from the MERIT RCT. Mortality was estimated by applying BMI-specific hazard ratios to US general population mortality rates. We used BMI-based health state utilities to reflect the impact of obesity comorbidities and applied disutilities due to ESG AEs. Costs included intervention costs, AE costs, and BMI-based annual direct healthcare costs to account for costs associated with obesity comorbidities. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was assumed. RESULTS: In our base-case analysis over a 5-year time horizon, ESG was cost-effective versus lifestyle modification alone with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,432/QALY. ESG remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses we conducted and was dominant in analyses with longer time horizons. CONCLUSION: ESG is a cost-effective treatment option for people living with obesity and should be considered in commercial health plans as an additional treatment option for clinically eligible patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

Background: Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results. Results: The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.

Targeted therapies and conventional care for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the network-meta analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of conventional care (CC) and seven first-line targeted therapies marketed in China for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS)-namely secukinumab, ixekizumab, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab and tofacitinib-from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. METHODS: The York model was structured as a 12-week decision tree leading into two Markov models. This study set 1 year as a recurring cycle and a lifetime timeframe for the model. Primary model outcomes included the costs in Chinese yuan (CNY), health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥89,358 (equal to the per capita gross domestic product in China in 2023) per QALY. Parameters in the York model were captured from network meta-analyses and literature including treatment response, short-term disease progression, patient functioning and long-term structural disease progression. Utilities are dependent on indicators such as the BASDAI score, the BASFI score, gender and age. Drug prices were analysed using the median price of the Chinese market from YAOZH net in the basic analysis. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5.0%. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness of the results. The prices of original drugs and generic drugs were used in the scenario analysis. RESULTS: Compared with CC, the ICER of golimumab was ¥104,217.4/QALY, which is between 1 and 3 times the GDP per capita, while the ICERs of the other six targeted therapies were less than ¥89,358/QALY. The specific economic rank of the targeted therapy was as follows: secukinumab > ixekizumab > tofacitinib > infliximab > etanercept > adalimumab > golimumab. Treatment response rates such as the BASDAI50, changes in the BASDAI/BASFI scores and the discounting rate were key model drivers. According to the scenario analysis, IL-17 inhibitors were still the most economical intervention when original drugs and generic drugs were used. CONCLUSION: Targeted therapies are cost-effective treatments for AS. Overall, IL-17 inhibitors were the dominant treatment. The choice of the brand-new prices or generic drug prices can greatly affect economics.