Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Evaluating Policies of Expanding Versus Restricting First-Line Treatment Choices: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Boshen Jiao1, Josh J Carlson2, Louis P Garrison2
1The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Department of Global Health and Population, Havard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Objectives:
Healthcare payers often implement coverage policies that restrict the utilization of costly new first-line treatments. Cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to inform these decisions by comparing the new treatment with an existing one. However, this approach may overlook important factors such as treatment effect heterogeneity and endogenous treatment selection, policy implementation costs, and diverse patient preferences across multiple treatment options. We aimed to develop a cost-effectiveness analysis framework that considers these real-world factors, facilitating the evaluation of alternative policies related to expanding or restricting first-line treatment choices.
Methods:
We introduced a metric of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compares an expanded choice set (CS) including the new first-line treatment with a restricted CS excluding the new treatment. ICER(CS) accounts for treatment selection influenced by heterogeneous treatment effects and policy implementation costs. We examined a basic scenario with 2 standard first-line treatment choices and a more realistic scenario involving diverse preferences toward multiple choices. To illustrate the framework, we conducted a retrospective evaluation of including versus excluding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] + AAP) as a first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
Results:
The traditional ICERs for ADT + AAP versus ADT alone and ADT+ docetaxel were $104 269 and $206 324/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. The ICER(CS) for comparing an expanded CS with ADT + AAP with a restricted CS without ADT + AAP was $123 179/quality-adjusted life-year.
Conclusions:
The proposed framework provides decision makers with policy-relevant tools, enabling them to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of expanding versus restricting patients' and physicians' first-line treatment choices.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Dose-Response Relationship: Potency and Efficacy

