Assessing a Potential Framework to Prioritise Generalised Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GCEA) Value Elements in Future Decision Making by Evidence and Relevance: Case Study Across Oncology and Infectious Diseases
Author(s)
Teng C1, Istsenko E1, Tilley L2, Begum N1, Coerts F3, Lai T4, Unni S4, Gorsh B4, Suponcic S1
1FIECON Ltd, London, UK, 2FIECON Ltd, London, LON, UK, 3Daiichi-Sankyo, Schiphol-Rijk, Netherlands, 4Daiichi-Sankyo, New Jersey, NJ, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, increasing healthcare costs and limited budgets have meant that there have been shifts in focus towards cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) for new treatments. However, current CEAs are typically limited to the traditional patient and payer perspectives and include only standard value elements to demonstrate cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) benefits. Therefore, the addition of novel value elements from the GCEA framework could further support and demonstrate additional value which is currently not fully captured using standard approaches. In this research, we aim to provide a framework on how these elements could be prioritized within GCEAs using the example therapeutic areas of oncology and vaccine assessments.
METHODS: A targeted literature review (1,013 papers identified and 48 extracted) was conducted to assess the GCEA value elements and their current applicability and relevance to decision-making. The inclusion and prioritisation of value elements in GCEAs should assess the relevance (perspective and population impacted, and the disease) and supporting evidence (evidence of applicability, and the anticipated impact for evidence).
RESULTS: Analysis showed that therapeutics for life-threatening diseases (like cancer) should prioritise patient-relevant value elements, vaccines should additionally consider the broader societal impact. In both oncology and infectious diseases, spillover effects (e.g. impact on caregivers’ quality of life and community transmission) and caregiver burden should be considered. Few published economic evaluations have included GCEA value elements. Studies that include informal care only do so through additional costs or QALY measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Rising healthcare costs and budget constraints make understanding an intervention’s true value essential. For vaccines, elements with societal impacts should be prioritised. For oncology, the value of hope and quality of life should be prioritised. Both should consider treatment options and disease severity. Integrating these GCEA elements into CEA will ensure the value of new treatments is fully understood by payers.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
HTA119
Topic
Health Technology Assessment, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes, Literature Review & Synthesis, Value Frameworks & Dossier Format
Disease
Oncology, Vaccines