scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of HIV/STI Prevention in High-Income Countries with Concentrated Epidemic Settings: A Scoping Review

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Palmo Brunner ◽  
Karma Brunner ◽  
Daniel Kübler
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
High Income ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Prevention Measures ◽  
Sti Prevention ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Concentrated Epidemic ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe purpose of this scoping review is to establish the state of the art on economic evaluations in the field of HIV/STI prevention in high-income countries with concentrated epidemic settings and to assess what we know about the cost-effectiveness of different measures. We reviewed economic evaluations of HIV/STI prevention measures published in the Web of Science and Cost-Effectiveness Registry databases. We included a total of 157 studies focusing on structural, behavioural, and biomedical interventions, covering a variety of contexts, target populations and approaches. The majority of studies are based on mathematical modelling and demonstrate that the preventive measures under scrutiny are cost-effective. Interventions targeted at high-risk populations yield the most favourable results. The generalisability and transferability of the study results are limited due to the heterogeneity of the populations, settings and methods involved. Furthermore, the results depend heavily on modelling assumptions. Since evidence is unequally distributed, we discuss implications for future research.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of HIV testing options for low-prevalence high-income countries: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olanrewaju Medu ◽  
Adegboyega Lawal ◽  
Doug Coyle ◽  
Kevin Pottie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hiv Testing ◽  
High Income ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Rapid Hiv Testing ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Low Prevalence

Abstract Introduction This study reviewed the economic evidence of rapid HIV testing versus conventional HIV testing in low-prevalence high-income countries; evaluated the methodological quality of existing economic evaluations of HIV testing studies; and made recommendations on future economic evaluation directions of HIV testing approaches. Methods A systematic search of selected databases for relevant English language studies published between Jan 1, 2001, and Jan 30, 2019, was conducted. The methodological design quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Drummond tool. We reported the systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results Five economic evaluations met the eligibility criteria but varied in comparators, evaluation type, perspective, and design. The methodologic quality of the included studies ranged from medium to high. We found evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing approaches in low-prevalence high-income countries. Rapid HIV testing was associated with cost per adjusted life year (QALY), ranging from $42,768 to $90,498. Additionally, regardless of HIV prevalence, rapid HIV testing approaches were the most cost-effective option. Conclusions There is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of rapid HIV testing, including the use of saliva-based testing compared to usual care or hospital-based serum testing. Further studies are needed to draw evidence on the relative cost-effectiveness of the distinct options and contexts of rapid HIV testing.

The cost-effectiveness of algorithms and artificial intelligence applied in health care: A scoping review research protocol (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Aboueid ◽  
Rebecca Hsin-Ling Liu ◽  
Piraveena Sabesan
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND Given the rapid digitization of health care and abundance of available data, there is a great interest in how to leverage these advancements into evidence-based practice. Algorithms and artificial intelligence have the potential to improve health care, reduce costs, and contribute to evidence-based practice. An in-depth examination of the available evidence is needed to elucidate the cost-effectiveness of algorithms and AI techniques applied in health care. OBJECTIVE The goal of this scoping review will be to map the literature on the cost-effectiveness of algorithms and AI techniques applied in health care. The current review protocol provides an overview of the steps taken to complete the review. METHODS The PRISMA-Scoping Review checklist will be used to guide the reporting of the scoping review. Three main concepts include: 1) health care costs; 2) algorithms and AI techniques; and 3) cost-effectiveness analysis. The following databases will be used: PubMed, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Google Scholar, Econlit, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Two researchers (SA and RHL) will independently screen the titles, abstracts, and full texts, while a third researcher (PS) will negotiate any discrepancies, until consensus is reached. RESULTS Article retrieval, data extraction, and interpretation are currently underway. CONCLUSIONS Findings from the review may provide invaluable insights on the cost-effectiveness of algorithms and AI techniques applied in health care. Given that health care dollars are scarce, it is important to know which algorithms and AI techniques are worth the upfront investments. As a result, decision-makers will be able to identify which algorithms or AI technique would be of value for their specific context. This review will also identify key knowledge gaps in the literature and will provide next steps for future research. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable - this is a scoping review.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review

2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (9) ◽  
pp. 1261-1271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Kasztura ◽  
Aude Richard ◽  
Nefti-Eboni Bempong ◽  
Dejan Loncar ◽  
Antoine Flahault
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Objectives Precision medicine (PM) aims to improve patient outcomes by stratifying or individualizing diagnosis and treatment decisions. Previous reviews found inconclusive evidence as to the cost-effectiveness of PM. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe current research findings on the cost-effectiveness of PM and to identify characteristics of cost-effective interventions. Methods We searched PubMed with a combination of terms related to PM and economic evaluations and included studies published between 2014 and 2017. Results A total of 83 articles were included, of which two-thirds were published in Europe and the USA. The majority of studies concluded that the PM intervention was at least cost-effective compared to usual care. However, the willingness-to-pay thresholds varied widely. Key factors influencing cost-effectiveness included the prevalence of the genetic condition in the target population, costs of genetic testing and companion treatment and the probability of complications or mortality. Conclusions This review may help inform decisions about reimbursement, research and development of PM interventions.

scholarly journals Assessing the indirect effects of COVID-19 on healthcare delivery, utilization and health outcomes: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte M Roy ◽  
E Brennan Bollman ◽  
Laura M Carson ◽  
Alexander J Northrop ◽  
Elizabeth F Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Health Effects ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Health ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
High Income ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Local Health

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic and global efforts to contain its spread, such as stay-at-home orders and transportation shutdowns, have created new barriers to accessing healthcare, resulting in changes in service delivery and utilization globally. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the literature published thus far on the indirect health effects of COVID-19 and to explore the data sources and methodologies being used to assess indirect health effects. Methods A scoping review of peer-reviewed literature using three search engines was performed. Results One hundred and seventy studies were included in the final analysis. Nearly half (46.5%) of included studies focused on cardiovascular health outcomes. The main methodologies used were observational analytic and surveys. Data were drawn from individual health facilities, multicentre networks, regional registries, and national health information systems. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries with only 35.4% of studies representing low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Conclusion Healthcare utilization for non-COVID-19 conditions has decreased almost universally, across both high- and lower-income countries. The pandemic’s impact on non-COVID-19 health outcomes, particularly for chronic diseases, may take years to fully manifest and should be a topic of ongoing study. Future research should be tied to system improvement and the promotion of health equity, with researchers identifying potentially actionable findings for national, regional and local health leadership. Public health professionals must also seek to address the disparity in published data from LMICs as compared with high-income countries.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

scholarly journals Cost Needed to Treat (CNT) and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) analysis of drugs for treatment of heart failure in India

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Mullavelil ◽  
V George ◽  
A Thannikkal ◽  
R Aravindakshan ◽  
D John ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Neprilysin Inhibitor ◽  
Long Term Treatment ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽  
Effectiveness Threshold

Abstract Background Only little attention has been paid to treatment strategies of chronic disease conditions that require long term treatment and repeated hospitalizations Purpose Our aim was to review cost-effectiveness of guideline directed medical therapy of heart failure in India and identify drugs that can be made available free of cost or at subsidized rates to the patient population. Methods Data extracted from ten landmark trials in heart failure was used to compute Number Needed to Treat (NNT) and Cost Needed to Treat (CNT) of drugs used in heart failure, to prevent cardiovascular mortality and heart failure re-hospitalization using HDS Plotter- Incremental Cost Effectiveness Calculator. Since various brands (i.e. trade names) with wide cost range are available in Indian market, the average retail price in Indian Rupees for year 2019 was considered and converted to US dollars and used for the analysis.NNT and CNT of each drug was computed and the cost-effectiveness was analyzed. WHO recommendation of three times per capita GDP was used as the cost effectiveness threshold. Results Medications that were labeled as class I for the treatment of heart failure, were included in our analysis. Ivabradine, Valsartan and Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) did not meet the cost effectiveness criteria for preventing cardio-vascular mortality. For prevention of heart failure re-hospitalization, all drugs except ARNi, met the cost effectiveness threshold. Conclusion Any future research would need to consider compliance factor along with Willingness to Pay (WTP) to understand the real acceptance of these drugs on the ground in India. Log prices (in US$) of various HF drugs Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ahmad Gholami ◽  
Jassem Azizpoor ◽  
Elham Aflaki ◽  
Mehdi Rezaee ◽  
Khosro Keshavarz
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Fars Province ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost

Introduction. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. Methods. This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. Results. The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. Conclusion. According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of treatment optimisation with biomarkers for immunotherapy in solid tumours: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e048141
Author(s):  
Sara Mucherino ◽  
Valentina Lorenzoni ◽  
Valentina Orlando ◽  
Isotta Triulzi ◽  
Marzia Del Re ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Solid Tumours ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit

IntroductionThe combination of biomarkers and drugs is the subject of growing interest both from regulators, physicians and companies. This study protocol of a systematic review is aimed to describe available literature evidences about the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or net-monetary benefit of the use of biomarkers in solid tumour as tools for customising immunotherapy to identify what further research needs.Methods and analysisA systematic review of the literature will be carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. PubMed and Embase will be queried from June 2010 to June 2021. The PICOS model will be applied: target population (P) will be patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the interventions (I) will be test of the immune checkpoint predictive biomarkers; the comparator (C) will be any other targeted or non-targeted therapy; outcomes (O) evaluated will be health economic and clinical implications assessed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net health benefit, net monetary benefit, life years gained, quality of life, etc; study (S) considered will be economic evaluations reporting cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, net-monetary benefit. The quality of the evidence will be graded according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will assess the cost-effectiveness implications of using biomarkers in the immunotherapy with ICIs, which may help to understand whether this approach is widespread in real clinical practice. This research is exempt from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. We will disseminate this protocol in a related peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201549.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Economic evaluations of health care interventions in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia after Stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Marin ◽  
Mateu Serra-Prat ◽  
Omar Ortega ◽  
Pere Clavé
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Stroke Patients ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Healthcare Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background and purpose: Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (OD) affects 40-81% of patients after stroke. A recent systematic review on the costs of OD and it’s main complications showed higher acute and long-term costs for those patients who developed OD, malnutrition and pneumonia after stroke. These results suggest that appropriate management of post-stroke OD could lead to reduction of clinical complications and significant cost savings. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the available literature exploring the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of available healthcare interventions on the appropriate management of OD. Methods: A systematic review on economic evaluations of health care interventions on post-stroke patients with OD following PRISMA recommendations will be performed. MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry Database will be searched and a subsequent reference check will be done. English and Spanish literature will be included without date restrictions. Studies will be included if they refer to economic evaluations or studies in which cost savings were reported in post-stroke patients suffering OD. Studies will be excluded if they are partial economic evaluation studies, if they refer to esophageal dysphagia, or if OD is caused by causes different from stroke. Evidence will be presented and synthetized with a narrative method and using tables. Quality evaluation will be done using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. Discussion: The protocol for this systematic review is the first step to assess the cost-effectiveness of the healthcare interventions that have been described as potential treatments for post-stroke OD. This systematic review will summarize the current evidence on the relation between cost and benefits associated with the appropriate management of OD in post-stroke patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020136245

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document