PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter J Neumann

Publications and source records attributed to Peter J Neumann.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Emerging lessons from the drug effectiveness review project.

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) is an alliance of fifteen states and two private organizations, which have pooled resources to synthesize and judge clinical evidence for drug-class reviews. The experience shines a bright light on challenges involved in implementing an evidence-based medicine process to inform drug formulary decisions: When should evidence reviewers accept surrogate markers and assume therapeutic class effects? How open and participatory should review procedures be? Should reviewers consider cost-effectiveness information? What is the appropriate role of the public sector in judging evidence? The DERP illustrates that attempts to undertake evidence-based reviews, apart from the methods themselves, which continue to evolve, involve questions of organization, process, and leadership.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2006

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below 20,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 100,000 dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon. DESIGN: Systematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication. RESULTS: Approximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), 50,000 dollars/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and 100,000 dollars/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY. CONCLUSION: Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.

Conflict of Interest↗
PubMed2006

When is critical care medicine cost-effective? A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature.

BACKGROUND: Receiving care in an intensive care unit can greatly influence patients' survival and quality of life. Such treatments can, however, be extremely resource intensive. Therefore, it is increasingly important to understand the costs and consequences associated with interventions aimed at reducing mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become increasingly common to aid decisions about the allocation of scarce healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: To identify published original CEAs presenting cost/quality-adjusted life year or cost/life-year ratios for treatments used in intensive care units, to summarize the results in an accessible format, and to identify areas in critical care medicine that merit further economic evaluation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the English-language literature for original CEAs of critical care interventions published from 1993 through 2003. We collected data on the target population, therapy or program, study results, analytic methods employed, and the cost-effectiveness ratios presented. RESULTS: We identified 19 CEAs published through 2003 with 48 cost-effectiveness ratios pertaining to treatment of severe sepsis, acute respiratory failure, and general critical care interventions. These ratios ranged from cost saving to 958,423 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year and from 1,150 to 575,054 US dollars/life year gained. Many studies reported favorable cost-effectiveness profiles (i.e., below 50,000 US dollars/life year or quality-adjusted life year). CONCLUSIONS: Specific interventions such as activated protein C for patients with severe sepsis have been shown to provide good value for money. However, overall there is a paucity of CEA literature on the management of the critically ill, and further high-quality CEA is needed. In particular, research should focus on costly interventions such as 24-hr intensivist availability, early goal-directed therapy, and renal replacement therapy. Recent guidelines for the conduct of CEAs in critical care may increase the number and improve the quality of future CEAs.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2006

What affects the quality of economic analysis for life-saving investments?

Economic analysis of life-saving investments in both the public and private sectors has the potential to dramatically improve longevity and the quality of life, but only if the analyses on which decisions are based are done well. In this article, we analyze a data set that provides information on the content and quality of journal articles that measure the cost-effectiveness of life-saving investments. Our study is the first to provide a detailed multivariate analysis of factors affecting objective measures of quality. We also explore whether a series of recommendations by an expert panel convened by the U.S. Public Health Service affect the way analyses of specific life-saving investments are done. Our results suggest that four factors are positively correlated with an index we construct to measure analytical quality: (1) having at least one author affiliated with a university, (2) publication in a journal that has experience in publishing these analyses, (3) if the life-saving investment is located in the United States, and (4) if the analysis considers a measure of social costs or benefits. Somewhat surprisingly, a study's funding source and whether it is affiliated with industry are not significantly correlated with the quality index. Finally, neither time nor the panel guidelines had an impact on the index.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2006

Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value?

BACKGROUND: Substantial debate centers on the high cost and relative value of new cancer therapies. Oncologists play a pivotal role in treatment decisions, yet it is unclear whether they perceive high-cost new treatments to offer good value or how therapeutic costs factor into their treatment recommendations. METHODS: We surveyed 139 academic medical oncologists at two academic hospitals in Boston. We asked respondents to provide estimates for the cost and effectiveness of bevacizumab and whether they believed the treatment offered "good value." We also asked respondents to judge how large a gain in life expectancy would justify a hypothetical cancer drug that costs $70,000 a year. Using this information, we calculated implied cost-effectiveness thresholds. Finally, we explored respondents' views on the role of cost in treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ninety academic oncologists (65%) completed the survey. Seventy-eight percent stated that patients should have access to "effective" care regardless of cost. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds, derived from the bevacizumab and hypothetical scenarios, averaged roughly $300,000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Only 25% of oncologists felt that bevacizumab offered "good value." CONCLUSIONS: A majority of academic oncologists stated that cost does not influence their clinical practice, nor should it limit access to "effective" care. Yet respondents did not consider all effective drugs to be of good value. Implied cost-effectiveness thresholds were $300,000/QALY--a value higher than the $50,000 standard often cited. A subset of oncologists were sensitive to cost, believing it should factor into clinical decisions. These findings reflect the ongoing controversies within the medical community as expensive new therapies enter the system.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed2006

Economic evaluation in the US: what is the missing link?

In this paper we consider the evolving American healthcare landscape and what it means for the use of economic evaluation of health interventions. We emphasise that use of economic evaluation in the US is unlikely to follow the European, Canadian or Australian models, which use cost effectiveness openly and explicitly, given the decentralised manner in which American healthcare is organised, financed and delivered, as well as different political systems and traditions, and cultural expectations and attitudes surrounding healthcare. However, this does not mean that considerations of value are absent. On the contrary, measurement of value remains near the top of the agenda among US policy makers. With a few exceptions, it just isn't playing out explicitly. In the American context, it means in part heightened debate over clinical evidence, and cost sharing. In some cases, payers are also considering economic evaluation more directly in coverage and reimbursement decisions and indirectly for clinical practice guidelines and best practice recommendations. A dramatic shift in policy towards cost effectiveness seems unlikely in the near future. Change will likely come in incremental fashion through experimentation, and perhaps in selected circumstances with public and private leaders willing to take the political risks. Conceivably, more substantial change will occur with a major shift in the political leadership in Washington, DC in the legislative or executive branches, and/or with an economic downturn and severe pressures on federal and state health budgets. However, a more likely outcome is the ongoing indirect use of cost-effectiveness information.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2006

Do drug formulary policies reflect evidence of value?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which preferred drug lists and tiered formularies reflect evidence of value, as measured in published cost-utility analyses (CUAs). METHODS: Using 1998-2001 data from a large registry of cost-effectiveness analyses, we examined the 2004 Florida Medicaid preferred drug list and the 2004 Harvard Pilgrim Pharmacy Program 3-tier formulary, and compared cost-utility ratios (standardized to 2002 US dollars) of drugs with preferred and nonpreferred status. RESULTS: Few drugs on the formularies had any cost-utility data available. Of those that did, median cost-utility ratios were somewhat higher (less favorable) for Florida's preferred drugs compared with the nonpreferred drugs (25,465 dollars vs 13,085 dollars; P = .09). Ratios did not differ for drugs on tiers 1 and 2 of the Harvard Pilgrim formulary, although they were higher for tier 3 and for excluded drugs (18,309 dollars, 18,846 dollars, 52,119 dollars, and 22,580 dollars, respectively; P = .01). Among therapies reported to be cost-saving or to have cost-utility ratios below 50,000 dollars, 77% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 73% in Harvard Pilgrim. Among dominated drug interventions (reported to be more costly and less effective than alternatives), 95% had favored status in Florida Medicaid and 56% in Harvard Pilgrim. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the paucity of published cost-utility data available to formulary committees. Some discrepancies prevail between the value of drugs, as reflected in published cost-utility ratios, and the formulary placement policies of 2 large health plans.

Boston↗
PubMed2006

The economic burden of intracerebral hemorrhage: evidence from managed care.

Data from the Integrated Healthcare Information Services managed care database were used to estimate per-patient costs of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) for up to one year after an initial ICH event. Plan enrollees (age > or = 18 yr) hospitalized with a primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis of ICH (431.xx) during July 1999 to June 2002 were selected. Resource utilization/costs associated with the initial hospitalization were calculated for all patients. Postdischarge use/cost of health care services (repeat hospitalization, skilled nursing/rehabilitation services, outpatient use, pharmacy) were estimated for up to 365 days after hospital discharge for patients surviving the initial stay. Forty-six percent of the 493 patients selected were at least 65 years of age and 60% had private health insurance. Patients who died during their initial ICH hospitalization (N = 189 [38.4%]) incurred average treatment costs of $16,466. Survivors incurred initial hospitalization costs of $28,360 and first-year postdischarge costs of $16,035. Among survivors, 8% had repeat hospitalizations and 41% required inpatient skilled nursing/rehabilitation. Treatment costs for ICH to private payers appear to be considerable and may reflect a sizable long-term financial burden to U.S. health plans.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

A synthesis of cost-utility analysis literature in infectious disease.

The purpose of this review is to understand infectious disease-related cost-utility analyses by describing published analyses, examining growth and quality trends over time, examining factors related to quality, and summarising standardised results. 122 cost-utility analyses and 352 cost-utility ratios were identified. Pharmaceutical interventions were most common (47.5%); three author groups accounted for 42.8% of pharmaceutical ratios. High-volume journals (three or more published cost-utility analyses) published higher quality analyses than low-volume journals (p<0.001). Use of probabilistic sensitivity analysis and discounting at 3% were more frequently found in the years after the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations (p<0.01). Median ratios varied from US13,500 dollars/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for immunisations to US810,000 dollars/QALY for blood safety. Publication of infectious disease cost-utility analyses is increasing. The results of cost-utility analyses have important implications for the development of clinical guidelines and resource allocation decisions. More trained investigators and better peer-review processes are needed.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2005

Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice.

OBJECTIVES: The diffusion of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) through the medical literature was examined, documenting visible patterns and determining how they correspond with expectations about the diffusion of process innovations. METHODS: This study used 539 CUAs from a registry. It includes data elements comprising year of publication, the research center in which the study was performed, the clinical area covered by the CUA, and the specific journal. Finally, each paper was assigned to a journal type that could be one of the three categories: health services research, general medicine, or clinical specialty. RESULTS: When the average number of publications is plotted against time, the plot reveals an S-shaped curve. It appears that, whereas CUAs initially were published more frequently in general medical or health services research journals, there was a clear increase in the diffusion of CUA into subspecialty journals over time. The concentration ratio for research centers as measured by the Herfindhal-Hirschman Index decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The spread of CUA through the medical literature follows patterns identified for the diffusion of other new technologies and processes. Future research should focus on what impact this spread has had on the practice of medicine and formulation of health policy.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2005

Economic burden of pertussis and the impact of immunization.

Although routine use of vaccines has diminished the incidence of pertussis disease, it has not eliminated the pathogen. Epidemiologic data confirm that pertussis remains a significant health problem in all age groups. Disease burden is highest in infants, in whom pertussis disease frequently leads to severe complications and mortality, although it is also a significant health burden in adolescents and adults, in whom the reported incidence of pertussis is increasing. The Global Pertussis Initiative reviewed the literature to find data that express the economic impact of this health burden and to review economic evaluations of pertussis immunization. Although only limited data on the direct and indirect costs of pertussis are available, they suggest that it poses a significant economic burden and indicate that the direct medical costs of pertussis depend on the rate of hospitalization and the severity of complications, and are highest in infants. The indirect costs of pertussis also appear to be considerable, particularly among adults, in whom the disease reduces work productivity, because of either personal illness or child care responsibilities. Several health economic models on the cost effectiveness of childhood immunization strategies have been published, and although constrained by missing data, have generally found childhood immunization strategies to be cost-effective. Economic analyses of adolescent and adult immunization strategies have also been conducted, but the findings of these studies have been inconsistent. The most recent evaluations, using much higher estimates of incidence than reported previously, suggest that immunization of adolescents and specific adult subgroups may be cost-effective. The literature review confirmed that the economic burden of pertussis is substantial, but there are gaps in existing information. In the short term, further economic analyses are required, particularly of adolescent and adult immunization. More importantly, collection of primary epidemiologic and economic data should be undertaken in parallel. Despite the existing gaps in data, further research using the most current data should facilitate decisions on new vaccination strategies by describing conditions for favorable results and quantifying the margin of uncertainty.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The arrival of economic evidence in managed care formulary decisions: the unsolicited request process.

Managed care plans have traditionally resisted using economic evidence explicitly in drug formulary decisions, even as they used ever more aggressive and sophisticated processes for managing care. In recent years, this has changed as health plans have begun to adopt evidence-based and value-based formulary submission guidelines. The guidelines have the potential to serve as a national unifying template for pharmacy and therapeutics committees to consider clinical and economic information in a systematic and rigorous fashion. However, many questions remain about their use and about the nature of communications (called "unsolicited requests") from plans to drug companies for information. This article describes the unsolicited request process and its potential impact on the use of economic evidence in formulary decisions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2005

Quality-adjusted life years: how useful in medico economic studies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis has evolved as a practical response to the need to allocate limited resources for health care. It can be used to compare interventions whose effects on health are different if the measure of effectiveness captures all the important health dimensions of the effects of the interventions. Using the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) as the unit of effectiveness attempts to approach this ideal and is currently the approach recommended by many consensus groups. Conventional QALYs represent time spend in a series of "quality-weighted" health states, where the quality weights reflect the desirability of living in the state. Many challenges arise when preferences are incorporated into an economic analysis. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the issues surrounding the use of QALYs and to encourage researchers to present their methodology in a clear and transparent way.

Economics, Medical↗
PubMed2005

Cost-effectiveness of topiramate in migraine prevention: results from a pharmacoeconomic model of topiramate treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Patients whose migraines are frequent, cause disruptions of daily routines, or are unresponsive to acute treatment are primary candidates for preventive migraine therapy. This cost-effectiveness model assesses the clinical and economic impact of topiramate (TPM) therapy versus no preventive treatment for migraine headache in the United States. BACKGROUND: Despite significant progress in treatment options, the economic burden of migraine to patients, employers, health systems, and society is substantial. Treatment strategies for migraine are directed toward managing acute episodes. However, preventive therapy should be used for patients with frequent migraine attacks (>2 per month) or those experiencing attacks that disrupt daily routines. METHODS: Data for the model were obtained from the published literature and pooled results of two randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of TPM in migraine prevention. Model inputs included baseline migraine frequency (the base case assumed 6 per month, consistent with the average rate in the TPM trials), treatment discontinuation (including discontinuation due to adverse events), treatment response (ie, > or = 75%, 50% to 75%, and <50% reduction in migraine frequency), cost of preventive therapy (TPM plus physician visits for medication titration), cost of acute treatment per attack (including pharmacy and medical service costs), hours of disability per attack, hourly wage, and quality-of-life (utility) weights. Model outcomes included the number of migraines averted, disability hours, total cost of acute and preventive treatment, and lost wages. Results were expressed as cost per migraine averted and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY). All costs were stated as 2002 U.S. dollars. We also conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of model findings with respect to variation in key parameters. RESULTS: We estimated that the use of TPM would prevent 1.85 migraines per patient and almost 5 hours of disability per month versus no preventive treatment. Resulting savings in cost of acute treatment (dollar 27) and work loss (dollar 51) offset 68% of the expected monthly cost of TPM (dollar 113). The incremental cost per migraine averted was dollar 19, while the incremental cost per QALY was estimated to be dollar 10,888 (dollar 26,191 when indirect costs were excluded from the analysis). Model results were sensitive to baseline migraine rate and gain in health utility from migraine prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Economic savings associated with reduced migraine frequency offset approximately two thirds of the cost of preventive TPM therapy. The cost-effectiveness of TPM depends on utility gains associated with a reduced frequency of migraine headaches, which is the subject of ongoing research. However, results from our model suggest that the use of TPM in prevention of migraine may offer reasonable value for money relative to many well-accepted medical interventions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2005

Cost-utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The rising cost of health care has increased the need for the orthopaedic community to understand and apply economic evaluations. We critically reviewed the literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analysis to determine which subspecialty areas are represented, the cost-utility ratios that have been utilized, and the quality of the present literature. METHODS: We searched the English-language medical literature published between 1976 and 2001 for orthopaedic-related cost-utility analyses in which outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Two trained reviewers independently audited each article to abstract data on the methods and reporting practices used in the study as well as the cost-utility ratios derived by the analysis. RESULTS: Our search yielded thirty-seven studies, in which 116 cost-utility ratios were presented. Eleven of the studies were investigations of treatment strategies in total joint arthroplasty. Study methods varied substantially, with only five studies (14%) including four key criteria recommended by the United States Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. According to a reader-assigned measure of study quality, cost-utility analyses in orthopaedics were of lower quality than those in other areas of medicine (p = 0.04). While the number of orthopaedic studies has increased in the last decade, the quality did not improve over time and did not differ according to subspecialty area or journal type. For the majority of the interventions that were studied, the cost-utility ratio was below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year for acceptable cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Because of limitations in methodology, the current body of literature on orthopaedic cost-utility analyses has a limited ability to guide policy, but it can be useful for setting priorities and guiding research. Future research with clear and transparent reporting is needed in all subspecialty areas of orthopaedic practice.

Arthroplasty, Replacement↗
PubMed2005

Health utilities in Alzheimer's disease and implications for cost-effectiveness analysis.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provisional decision against memantine and other medications for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has generated much discussion. In its decision, NICE expressed concern about the data source used for the utility scores in the industry submission of the memantine model. NICE therefore turned to an alternative data source. However, in doing so, it made the key assumption that moderate-to-severe AD patients living in the community were independent. Furthermore, the NICE data source also had its limitations. There are numerous limitations in inferring from available data how utilities vary between dependent and non-dependent patients with AD. Most importantly, we lack direct evidence from primary data. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that patients with severe AD, and likely those with moderate AD as well, have full-time care needs, regardless of their setting. The NICE assumption that they do not results in a difference in utilities between dependent and non-dependent AD individuals of only 0.06. This seems to be at the low end of what one would consider a reasonable estimate.

Alzheimer Disease↗