Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: To characterize and compare economic evaluations of the same intervention by the Center for Pharmacoeconomics (CPE) and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), focusing on model inputs and results.
METHODS: CPE and ICER assessments of acoramidis, xanomeline/trospium chloride, sacubitril/valsartan, and dimethyl fumarate were paired by intervention for data extraction into a pre-specified grid. Extractions included model parameters, parameter values, and cost-effectiveness results vs identical or closely aligned comparators across the respective pair of assessments. Results were defined as $/equal value of life-year (evLY) gained, representing the “conventional” perspective in CPE reports.
For each assessment pairing, all unique input parameters were compared in a categorical concordance framework where each parameter was scored 1 if the specified parameter was included in both the CPE and ICER reports (0 otherwise). Parameters scored 1 under the categorical framework were compared for numerical concordance if input values were available, following the same procedure. Input parameters were only considered if explicitly reported in the CPE/ICER assessments.
RESULTS: Model parameter categorical/numerical concordance calculated between the paired assessments was: acoramidis: 54%/69%; xanomeline/trospium chloride: 23%/89%; sacubitril/valsartan: 55%/40%; and dimethyl fumarate: 30%/50%. In some cases, numerical concordance was calculated from as few as two parameters, due to low categorical concordance.
Cost-effectiveness results based on $/evLY gained were similar across CPE/ICER reports: acoramidis: $767,000/$627,000; xanomeline/trospium chloride: $127,000/$146,000; sacubitril/valsartan: $41,000/$46,251. Dimethyl fumarate’s ICER assessment did not report $/evLY gained, preventing direct comparison with CPE.
CONCLUSIONS: CPE and ICER assessments yielded broadly consistent conclusions regarding value across interventions under a conventional cost-effectiveness framework. While input parameters varied between paired assessments, potentially reflecting differences in reporting practices, numerical concordance was relatively high where comparable parameters were available. These findings suggest that similar value conclusions may be reached despite heterogeneity between conventional CPE and ICER cost-effectiveness models. Greater transparency in reporting would further support cross-assessment comparability.