IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v6y2022i1d10.1007_s41669-021-00298-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Sydney C. Yuen

    (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Adaeze Q. Amaefule

    (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Hannah H. Kim

    (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Breanna-Verissa Owoo

    (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

  • Emily F. Gorman

    (Health Sciences and Human Services Library, University of Maryland)

  • T. Joseph Mattingly

    (University of Maryland School of Pharmacy)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sydney C. Yuen & Adaeze Q. Amaefule & Hannah H. Kim & Breanna-Verissa Owoo & Emily F. Gorman & T. Joseph Mattingly, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 9-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00298-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-021-00298-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:6:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-021-00298-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.