Cost-effectiveness (CE) thresholds are being discussed more frequently and there have been many new developments in this area; however, there is a lack of understanding about what thresholds mean and their implications. This paper provides an overview of the CE threshold literature. First, the meaning of a CE threshold and the key assumptions involved (perfect divisibility, marginal increments in budget, etc.) are highlighted using a hypothetical example, and the use of historic/heuristic estimates of the threshold is noted along with their limitations. Recent endeavours to estimate the empirical value of the thresholds, both from the supply side and the demand side, are then presented. The impact on CE thresholds of future directions for the field, such as thresholds across sectors and the incorporation of multiple criteria beyond quality-adjusted life-years as a measure of 'value', are highlighted. Finally, a number of common issues and misconceptions associated with CE thresholds are addressed.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.

Introduction We estimated the cost effectiveness of different cognitive screening tests for use by General Practitioners (GPs) to detect cognitive impairment in England. Methods A patient‐level cost‐effectiveness model was developed using a simulated cohort that represents the elderly population in England (65 years and older). Each patient was followed over a lifetime period. Data from published sources were used to populate the model. The costs include government funded health and social care, private social care and informal care. Patient health benefit was measured and valued in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Results Base‐case analyses found that adopting any of the three cognitive tests (Mini‐Mental State Examination, 6‐Item Cognitive Impairment Test or GPCOG (General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition)) delivered more QALYs for patients over their lifetime and made savings across sectors including healthcare, social care and informal care compared with GP unassisted judgement. The benefits were due to early access to medications. Among the three cognitive tests, adopting the GPCOG was considered the most cost‐effective option with the highest Incremental Net Benefit (INB) at the threshold of £30 000 per QALY from both the National Health Service and Personal Social Service (NHS PSS) perspective (£195 034 per 1000 patients) and the broader perspective that includes private social care and informal care (£196 251 per 1000 patients). Uncertainty was assessed in both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Our analyses indicate that the use of any of the three cognitive tests could be considered a cost‐effective strategy compared with GP unassisted judgement. The most cost‐effective option in the base‐case was the GPCOG. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background The aim of this study was to assess the sex differences in both the rate and type of repair for emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in England. Methods Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data sets from April 2002 to February 2015 were obtained. Clinical and administrative codes were used to identify patients who underwent primary emergency definitive repair of ruptured or intact AAA, and patients with a diagnosis of AAA who died in hospital without repair. These three groups included all patients with a primary AAA who presented as an emergency. Sex differences between repair rates and type of surgery (endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair) over time were examined. Results In total, 15 717 patients (83·3 per cent men) received emergency surgical intervention for ruptured AAA and 10 276 (81·2 per cent men) for intact AAA; 12 767 (62·0 per cent men) died in hospital without attempted repair. The unadjusted odds ratio for no repair in women versus men was 2·88 (95 per cent c.i. 2·75 to 3·02). Women undergoing repair of ruptured AAA were older and had a higher in‐hospital mortality rate (50·0 versus 41·0 per cent for open repair; 30·9 versus 23·5 per cent for EVAR). After adjustment for age, deprivation and co‐morbidities, the odds ratio for no repair in women versus men was 1·34 (1·28 to 1·40). The in‐hospital mortality rate after emergency repair of an intact AAA was also higher among women. Conclusion Women who present as an emergency with an AAA are less likely to undergo repair than men. Although some of this can be explained by differences in age and co‐morbidities, the differences persist after case‐mix adjustment.

This analysis provides new evidence on incorporating additional direct medical costs in the mortality year, and refining the structure of total cost estimates for use in costing and cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for DM.