Cargando…
A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment
BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8807829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34427897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z |
_version_ | 1784643760668278784 |
---|---|
author | Yuen, Sydney C. Amaefule, Adaeze Q. Kim, Hannah H. Owoo, Breanna-Verissa Gorman, Emily F. Mattingly, T. Joseph |
author_facet | Yuen, Sydney C. Amaefule, Adaeze Q. Kim, Hannah H. Owoo, Breanna-Verissa Gorman, Emily F. Mattingly, T. Joseph |
author_sort | Yuen, Sydney C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550–$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range − $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from − $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8807829 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88078292022-02-02 A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment Yuen, Sydney C. Amaefule, Adaeze Q. Kim, Hannah H. Owoo, Breanna-Verissa Gorman, Emily F. Mattingly, T. Joseph Pharmacoecon Open Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550–$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range − $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from − $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z. Springer International Publishing 2021-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8807829/ /pubmed/34427897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Yuen, Sydney C. Amaefule, Adaeze Q. Kim, Hannah H. Owoo, Breanna-Verissa Gorman, Emily F. Mattingly, T. Joseph A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title | A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title_full | A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title_fullStr | A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title_short | A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment |
title_sort | systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8807829/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34427897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yuensydneyc asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT amaefuleadaezeq asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT kimhannahh asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT owoobreannaverissa asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT gormanemilyf asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT mattinglytjoseph asystematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT yuensydneyc systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT amaefuleadaezeq systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT kimhannahh systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT owoobreannaverissa systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT gormanemilyf systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment AT mattinglytjoseph systematicreviewofcosteffectivenessanalysesforhepatocellularcarcinomatreatment |