As noted in NICE analysis, the key driver of cost effectiveness for antipsychotics is their probability to reduce relapse rates.
Underlying disease progression was indentified as the main driver of cost effectiveness.
The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the treatment effect and the discontinuation rate.
8, 12, 14, 15 Thus, herd effects among adults are the major drivers of cost-effectiveness estimates when considering PCV recommendations for children.
In contrast, HbA1c and weight were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness in the liraglutide vs. sitagliptin comparison, with only small effects from systolic blood pressure and cholesterol, reflecting the greater effect of liraglutide vs. sitagliptin on reducing HbA1c and weight, and the comparable effects of both of these therapies on systolic blood pressure and cholesterol [ 11].
However, common drivers of cost-effectiveness included those affecting the number of RSV hospitalisations and those affecting costs.
Given many studies found non-significant differences in costs between interventions, differences in health outcomes have the capacity to be the main drivers of cost-effectiveness.
Rather than culture costs per se, the primary drivers of cost-effectiveness included clinical practices (e.g., empiric TB treatment), communications or patient follow-up (e.g., translating culture results into treatment), and TB prevalence.
Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses were carried out in order to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness.
A series of univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the key drivers of cost-effectiveness in the model.
