A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment
AuthorYuen, Sydney C
Amaefule, Adaeze Q
Kim, Hannah H
Gorman, Emily F
Mattingly, T Joseph
JournalPharmacoEconomics - Open
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBackground: 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.
Rights/Terms© 2021. The Author(s).
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/16489
- Adefovir dipivoxil and pegylated interferon alfa-2a for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
- Authors: Shepherd J, Jones J, Takeda A, Davidson P, Price A
- Issue date: 2006 Aug
- Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Authors: Droeghaag R, Hermans SMM, Caelers IJMH, Evers SMAA, van Hemert WLW, van Santbrink H
- Issue date: 2021 Jun
- The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence.
- Authors: Ekpu VU, Brown AK
- Issue date: 2015
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with non-curative or palliative intent for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world setting.
- Authors: Thein HH, Qiao Y, Zaheen A, Jembere N, Sapisochin G, Chan KKW, Yoshida EM, Earle CC
- Issue date: 2017
- Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation.
- Authors: Clarke A, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Grove A, Freeman K, Mistry H, Tsertsvadze A, Connock M, Court R, Kandala NB, Costa M, Suri G, Metcalfe D, Crowther M, Morrow S, Johnson S, Sutcliffe P
- Issue date: 2015 Jan