ArticlePDF Available

Incremental or average cost-utility of routine cataract surgery?

Authors:
  • ESiOR Oy

Abstract

I read with interest and enthusiasm the recently published article by Räsänen et al. that studied the cost-utility of routine cataract surgery in real life setting. The presented routine approach with everyday conditions is novel. Furthermore, the article is excellent and a well-written piece of hard work. Consequently, these comments are aimed as advises for future novel research. Unfortunately, the article raised few important methodological issues which should be discussed in details. Firstly, authors refer that "HRQoL gain was assumed to last till the end of the remaining statistical life" and "this approach is typically used for the calculation of QALYs gained by the medical intervention". I assume that the authors have applied direct extrapolation without any level of uncertainty to calculate the QALYs. Unfortunately, the golden standard for the QALY estimation seems to be Markov state transition models in which e.g. the risk of death can be properly handled. Secondly, authors do not point out any system (e.g. multivariate analysis) to handle the confounding which is typically present in routine-styled settings. This raises the question of comparability between one eye and two eye surgery even in the average cost per average QALY (i.e. cost-effectiveness ratio, CER) setting. This comparison seems to be present in e.g. figure 10 as the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC). Thirdly, in addition to deterministic approach, authors use stochastic approach and use bootstrapping-based probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to present the sampling uncertainty as the cost-effectiveness planes (cf. figures 7-9). In their planes, axes are referred as "incremental". Unfortunately, these axes are not incremental as they compare subgroup results to "no treatment" option. Actually, the axes give distributions for average costs and average effectiveness. Thus, the decision is not based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the consequent decision at margin is very different from the decision at average (e.g. CER: whether to operate any eye or not vs. e.g. ICER: whether to operate both eyes or just one eye). This difference in interpretation between CER and ICER as well as the use of generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and CER as the primary outcomes raise ethical questions which should have been addressed. For example, in novel cancer medication evaluations, the comparator is typically the best supportive care (BSC) introducing some costs and effectiveness, if no other treatment option is relevant. Fourthly, authors do not point out whether or not dependence between average costs and average effectiveness was present. This may have an impact on the shapes of CEACs and, thus, to the probabilities of average cost-effectiveness. Fifthly, the cost per QALY approach handled this way refers to the comparison of allocative efficiency (e.g. league tables). In economics, technical efficiency is a necessary condition for allocative efficiency. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure how technically efficient are the operations in the trial hospital and, thus, how generalizable are the cost per QALY results. Lastly, I suggest utilizing incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) regression method in depicting the CEACs and handling the subgroup heterogeneity in future routine research. In this case, INMB may have been obtainable through propensity score methods. Authors point out the importance of optimizing the custom in which cataract operations are carried out. This may have been obtainable through multivariate INMB regression methods including e.g. waiting time, type of cataract, visual acuity at baseline, subgroup and propensity score as the independent variables. Thank you.
2.11
Incremental or average cost-utility of routine cataract surgery?
Erkki Soini (2006-10-24 16:44) Department of Health Policy and Management, Department of Social Pharmacy, University of Kuopio email
I read with interest and enthusiasm the recently published article by Räsänen et al. that studied the cost-utility of routine cataract surgery in real life setting. The presented routine
approach with everyday conditions is novel. Furthermore, the article is excellent and a well-written piece of hard work. Consequently, these comments are aimed as advises for
future novel research. Unfortunately, the article raised few important methodological issues which should be discussed in details.
Firstly, authors refer that "HRQoL gain was assumed to last till the end of the remaining statistical life" and "this approach is typically used for the calculation of QALYs gained by
the medical intervention". I assume that the authors have applied direct extrapolation without any level of uncertainty to calculate the QALYs. Unfortunately, the golden standard
for the QALY estimation seems to be Markov state transition models in which e.g. the risk of death can be properly handled.
Secondly, authors do not point out any system (e.g. multivariate analysis) to handle the confounding which is typically present in routine-styled settings. This raises the question of
comparability between one eye and two eye surgery even in the average cost per average QALY (i.e. cost-effectiveness ratio, CER) setting. This comparison seems to be present in
e.g. figure 10 as the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC).
Thirdly, in addition to deterministic approach, authors use stochastic approach and use bootstrapping-based probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to present the sampling
uncertainty as the cost-effectiveness planes (cf. figures 7-9). In their planes, axes are referred as "incremental". Unfortunately, these axes are not incremental as they compare
subgroup results to "no treatment" option. Actually, the axes give distributions for average costs and average effectiveness. Thus, the decision is not based on the incremental
cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the consequent decision at margin is very different from the decision at average (e.g. CER: whether to operate any eye or not vs. e.g. ICER:
whether to operate both eyes or just one eye). This difference in interpretation between CER and ICER as well as the use of generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and CER
as the primary outcomes raise ethical questions which should have been addressed. For example, in novel cancer medication evaluations, the comparator is typically the best
supportive care (BSC) introducing some costs and effectiveness, if no other treatment option is relevant.
Fourthly, authors do not point out whether or not dependence between average costs and average effectiveness was present. This may have an impact on the shapes of CEACs
and, thus, to the probabilities of average cost-effectiveness.
Fifthly, the cost per QALY approach handled this way refers to the comparison of allocative efficiency (e.g. league tables). In economics, technical efficiency is a necessary condition
for allocative efficiency. Unfortunately, we cannot be sure how technically efficient are the operations in the trial hospital and, thus, how generalizable are the cost per QALY
results.
Research
Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery
Pirjo Räsänen
*
, Kari Krootila, Harri Sintonen, Tiina Leivo, Anna-Maija Koivisto, Olli-Pekka Ryynänen, Marja Blom and Risto P Roine
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2006, 4:74 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-74
Corresponding author: Pirjo Räsänen * pirjo.rasanen@stakes.fi
HQLO | User comments | Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery
http://www.hqlo.com/content/4/1/74/comments/
1 / 2 21.7.2012 9:01
top
Lastly, I suggest utilizing incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) regression method in depicting the CEACs and handling the subgroup heterogeneity in future routine research.
In this case, INMB may have been obtainable through propensity score methods. Authors point out the importance of optimizing the custom in which cataract operations are
carried out. This may have been obtainable through multivariate INMB regression methods including e.g. waiting time, type of cataract, visual acuity at baseline, subgroup and
propensity score as the independent variables. Thank you.
Competing interests
None.
Post a comment
HQLO | User comments | Cost-utility of routine cataract surgery
http://www.hqlo.com/content/4/1/74/comments/
2 / 2 21.7.2012 9:01
... CER can be used for the comparison of mutually independent options, but not in the comparison of mutually dependent treatment options. That is, in comparative decision situations CER compares the treatments to unrealistic "do nothing" situations [15,16,19], which results in the lowest cost per health benefit (i.e., a form of cost-minimization analysis). In simple terms, the comparator of the CER analysis tends to be "instant death" with zero costs and effectiveness, i.e.: is true only when C 0 =0 and E 0 =0. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To assess the willingness to pay (WTP) for eight new treatments from a life-long perspective. Methods: A contingent valuation with virtual examples and dichotomous choice questions is circulated to Finnish clinicians (N 146) and politicians (N 73). Costs and utilities (15D, EQ-5D) are obtained from Finnish sources, and the health care payer perspective is assumed. Health benefits are measured using life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, and 3% and 0% annual discounting is done. The results are presented as different WTP thresholds (incremental and aggregate cost-effectiveness ratios, and incremental investments, II). Heterogeneity is handled using conditional (Hurdle) modeling. Results: In 1,092 decisions, the mean discounted (undiscounted) incremental WTP/QALY gained is €102,616 (€78,686) and €94,770 (€77,856) measured with 15D and EQ-5D, respectively. The mean discounted (undiscounted) incremental WTP/LYG is €66,277 (€58,160). The highest incremental WTPs are reported for cancer (€205,994–250,509/QALY gained) and lowest for metabolic disease (€23,492–43,398/QALY gained) treatment. The discounted (undiscounted) IIs to health care are €83,886 (€85,398) Euros; metabolic presenting the highest (€199,499-213,808) and coronary heart disease treatment (€36,124-36,736) the lowest value for the lifetime of the patient. WTP is dependent upon disease/treatment, patient’s age, time preference, health benefit type and discounting. Minor differences between clinicians and politicians are observed. Conclusion: WTP vary for different diseases and is not explained by incremental costs. Thus, a single WTP for all treatments/diseases hypothesis do not gain empirical support - WTP is better explained by treatment and patient/disease characteristics. Cost-effectiveness and II have a trade-off, which encourages studies including both efficiency and affordability.
Article
The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility and value of reducing the uncertainty associated with the decision to use first-line biologic treatment (bDMARD) after the failure of one or more traditional drugs (tDMARD) in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (msRA) in Finland. The treatment sequences were compared among 3000 hypothetical Finnish msRA patients using a probabilistic microsimulation model in a lifetime scenario. Adalimumab + methotrexate, etanercept + methotrexate, or tocilizumab + methotrexate were used as first biologics followed by rituximab + methotrexate and infliximab + methotrexate. Best supportive care (BSC), including tDMARDs, was assumed to be used after the exhaustion of the biologics. Methotrexate alone was added as a further comparator. Efficacy was based on ACR responses that were obtained from a mixed treatment comparison. The resources were valued with Finnish unit costs (year 2010) from the healthcare payer perspective. Additional analyses were carried out, including productivity losses. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) values were mapped to the EQ-5D values using the tocilizumab trials; 3% annual discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and extensive sensitivity analyses were completed. Incremental cost per QALY gained and multinomial expected value of perfect information (mEVPI). bDMARDs significantly increase the QALYs gained when compared to methotrexate alone. Tocilizumab + methotrexate was more cost-effective than adalimumab + methotrexate or etanercept + methotrexate in comparison with methotrexate alone, and adalimumab + methotrexate was dominated by etanercept + methotraxate. A QALY gained with retail-priced (wholesale-priced) tocilizumab + methotrexate costs €18,957 (€17,057) compared to methotrexate alone. According to the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), tocilizumab + methotrexate should be considered before rituximab + methotrexate, infliximab + methotrexate, and BSC. Based on the CEAF, tocilizumab + methotrexate had a 60-93% probability of being cost-effective with €20,000 per QALY gained (mEVPI €230-2182). Tocilizumab + methotrexate is a potentially cost-effective bDMARD treatment for msRA, indicating a low value of additional research information with the international threshold values. Efficacy based on an indirect comparison (certolizumab pegol, golimumab excluded), fixed treatment sequence after the exhaustion of first bDMARD, Swedish resource use data according to HAQ scores, and inpatient costs assumed to include surgery.
Article
Full-text available
Cost-utility and expected value of perfect information related to trabectedin in the treatment of metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: the publicly funded comments explored I read with interest the comments by Blomqvist, Johansson and Tarkkanen [1] (later, the commentators). Three key issues had been misunderstood concerning the article [2], which reported the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of trabectedin in the treatment of metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (mSTS) after anthracycline/ifosfamide: means were mixed with medians [1], the CEA [2] followed the official Finnish setting and guidance for health economic evaluations [3] and the data presented [1] was not comparable/related to the CEA [2]. Ideally, survival times should be reported as exhaustive means together with Kaplan–Meier curves based on a large-enough randomized clinical trial, as this would enable an unbiased analysis of hazard ratios—the time-to-event summary statistic of choice [4]. However, most trials provide median survivals when all patients have not met the end points and the valid estimation of means based on the censored data could result in statistical modelling/estimation. While it is possible to carry out CEAs and indirect comparisons (ICs), including meta-analyses based on mean time-to-event data [5], medians are not a suitable basis for IC [4] or CEA.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.