Advertisement

Preventing Leading Causes of Death: Systematic Review of Cost-Utility Literature

Published:November 01, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.07.019

      Introduction

      Heart disease, cancer, unintentional injury, chronic lower respiratory disease, and stroke are the 5 leading causes of death in the U.S. The objective of this review is to examine the economic value of prevention interventions addressing these 5 conditions.

      Methods

      Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry data were queried from 2010 to 2018 for interventions that addressed any of the 5 conditions in the U.S. Results were stratified by condition, prevention stage, type of intervention, study sponsorship, and study perspective. The analyses were conducted in 2020, and all costs were reported in 2019 dollars.

      Results

      In total, 549 cost-effectiveness analysis studies examined interventions addressing these 5 conditions in the U.S. Tertiary prevention interventions were assessed in 61.4%, whereas primary prevention was assessed in 8.6% of the studies. Primary prevention studies were predominantly funded by government, whereas industry sources funded more tertiary prevention studies, especially those dealing with pharmaceutical interventions. The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 5 conditions combined was $68,500 per quality-adjusted life year. Median incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lowest for primary prevention and highest for tertiary prevention.

      Discussion

      Primary prevention may be more cost effective than secondary and tertiary prevention interventions; however, research investments in primary prevention interventions, especially by industry, lag in comparison. These findings help to highlight the gaps in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature related to the 5 leading causes of death and identify understudied interventions and prevention stages for each condition.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
        National vital statistics system: mortality statistics.
        HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Rockville, MDSeptember 21, 2021 (Accessed May 2021)
        • Kochanek KD
        • Murphy SL
        • Xu J
        • Tejada-Vera B.
        Deaths: final data for 2014.
        Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2016; 65: 1-122
        • Garcia MC
        • Rossen LM
        • Bastian B
        • et al.
        Potentially excess deaths from the five leading causes of death in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties - United States, 2010-2017.
        MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019; 68: 1-11https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6810a1
        • Yoon PW
        • Bastian B
        • Anderson RN
        • Collins JL
        • Jaffe HW
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
        Potentially preventable deaths from the five leading causes of death–United States, 2008-2010.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014; 63: 369-374https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6545a1
        • Conti RM
        • Fein AJ
        • Bhatta SS.
        National trends in spending on and use of oral oncologics, first quarter 2006 through third quarter 2011.
        Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33: 1721-1727https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0001
        • Cronin KA
        • Lake AJ
        • Scott S
        • et al.
        Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part I: national cancer statistics.
        Cancer. 2018; 124: 2785-2800https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31551
        • Mariotto AB
        • Yabroff KR
        • Shao Y
        • Feuer EJ
        • Brown ML.
        Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020 [published correction appears in J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(8):699].
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 117-128https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq495
        • Meropol NJ
        • Schrag D
        • Smith TJ
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.
        J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 3868-3874https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.1183
        • Ekwueme DU
        • Zhao J
        • Rim SH
        • et al.
        Annual out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship among cancer survivors aged 18–64 years - United States, 2011-2016.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019; 68: 494-499https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6822a2
        • Winn AN
        • Ekwueme DU
        • Guy Jr, GP
        • Neumann PJ.
        Cost-utility analysis of cancer prevention, treatment, and control: a systematic review.
        Am J Prev Med. 2016; 50: 241-248https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.009
        • Experts in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia
        The price of drugs for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a reflection of the unsustainable prices of cancer drugs: from the perspective of a large group of CML experts.
        Blood. 2013; 121: 4439-4442https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-03-490003
        • Howard DH
        • Bach PB
        • Berndt ER
        • Conti RM.
        Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs.
        J Econ Perspect. 2015; 29: 139-162https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.139
        • Kantarjian HM
        • Fojo T
        • Mathisen M
        • Zwelling LA.
        Cancer drugs in the United States: Justum Pretium–the just price [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(30):3523].
        J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3600-3604https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.49.1845
        • Goldstein DA
        • Stemmer SM
        • Gordon N.
        The cost and value of cancer drugs - are new innovations outpacing our ability to pay?.
        Isr J Health Policy Res. 2016; 5: 40https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0097-0
        • Cairns J.
        Providing guidance to the NHS: the Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared.
        Health Policy. 2006; 76: 134-143https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.05.006
        • Drummond MF
        • Mason AR.
        European perspective on the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer therapies.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 191-195https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.07.8956
        • Mason AR
        • Drummond MF.
        Public funding of new cancer drugs: is NICE getting nastier?.
        Eur J Cancer. 2009; 45: 1188-1192https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.11.040
        • Raftery JP.
        Paying for costly pharmaceuticals: regulation of new drugs in Australia, England and New Zealand.
        Med J Aust. 2008; 188: 26-28https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01500.x
        • Rocchi A
        • Menon D
        • Verma S
        • Miller E.
        The role of economic evidence in Canadian oncology reimbursement decision-making: to lambda and beyond.
        Value Health. 2008; 11: 771-783https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00298.x
        • Chambers JD
        • Cangelosi MJ
        • Neumann PJ.
        Medicare's use of cost-effectiveness analysis for prevention (but not for treatment).
        Health Policy. 2015; 119: 156-163https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.11.012
        • Amin NP
        • Sher DJ
        • Konski AA.
        Systematic review of the cost effectiveness of radiation therapy for prostate cancer from 2003 to 2013.
        Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2014; 12: 391-408https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0106-9
        • Clegg A
        • Scott DA
        • Sidhu M
        • Hewitson P
        • Waugh N.
        A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.
        Health Technol Assess. 2001; 5: 1-195https://doi.org/10.3310/hta5320
        • Neumann PJ
        • Thorat T
        • Shi J
        • Saret CJ
        • Cohen JT.
        The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990-2012.
        Value Health. 2015; 18: 271-277https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002
        • Pignone M
        • Saha S
        • Hoerger T
        • Mandelblatt J.
        Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 96-104https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00007
        • York Health Economics Consortium
        Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
        York Health Economics Consortium, Heslington, NY2016 (Accessed 2020.)
        • Gold MR
        • Siegel JE
        • Russell LB
        • Weinstein MC.
        Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
        Oxford University Press, New York, NY1996
        • Neumann PJ
        • Sanders GD
        • Russell LB
        • Siegel JE
        • Ganiats TG.
        Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
        2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY2017
        • Sanders GD
        • Neumann PJ
        • Basu A
        • et al.
        Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.
        JAMA. 2016; 316: 1093-1103https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195
      1. Ekwueme DU, Khushalani JS, Chambers JD, Winn AN, Pope EF, Neumann PJ. Examining the value of interventions to prevent cancer and non-cancer conditions: a systematic review of cost-utility analysis, 1990-2018. In Press.

        • Neumann PJ.
        Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Med Care. 2009; 47 (suppl 1): S28-S32https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819bc09d
        • Baumgardner J
        • Brauer M
        • Skornicki M
        • Neumann P.
        Expanding cost-effectiveness analysis to all of health care: comparisons between CEAs on pharmaceuticals and medical/surgical procedures.
        Innovation and Value Initiative, Los Angeles, CAFebruary 21, 2018 (Published Accessed August 26, 2021)
        • Baumgardner JR
        • Neumann PJ.
        Balancing the use of cost-effectiveness analysis across all types of health care innovations.
        HealthAffairs, Bethesda, MDApril 14, 2017https://doi.org/10.1377/hblog20170414.059610
      2. Community Preventive Services Task Force findings. The Community Guide. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/task-force-findings. Updated October 2021. Accessed August 26, 2021.

        • Grosse SD.
        Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008; 8: 165-178https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.8.2.165
        • Russell LB.
        Prevention’s potential for slowing the growth of medical spending.
        National Coalition on Health Care, Washington, DCOctober 2007 (Accessed May 2021.)
        • Cohen JT
        • Neumann PJ
        • Weinstein MC.
        Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 358: 661-663https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0708558
        • Woolf SH.
        The power of prevention and what it requires.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 2437-2439https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.20.2437