Cost-of-illness studies and cost-effectiveness analyses in anxiety disorders: A systematic review

2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 14-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Konnopka ◽  
Falk Leichsenring ◽  
Eric Leibing ◽  
Hans-Helmut König
2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 476-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Stuhldreher ◽  
Alexander Konnopka ◽  
Beate Wild ◽  
Wolfgang Herzog ◽  
Stephan Zipfel ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 121 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Quentin ◽  
S. G. Riedel-Heller ◽  
M. Luppa ◽  
A. Rudolph ◽  
H.-H. König

2017 ◽  
Vol 210 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbin H. Ophuis ◽  
Joran Lokkerbol ◽  
Stella C.M. Heemskerk ◽  
Anton J.L.M. van Balkom ◽  
Mickaël Hiligsmann ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. S49
Author(s):  
D. Parra Padilla ◽  
B. Diaz Arrieta ◽  
I. Acevedo ◽  
J. Montero Mestre ◽  
F.E. Salcedo Mejía ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204201881982821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Grande ◽  
Ángel Díaz ◽  
Carlos López ◽  
Javier Munarriz ◽  
Juan-José Reina ◽  
...  

Background: Despite current interest, enthusiasm and progress in the development of therapies for gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there are substantial gaps in the published literature regarding cost-of-illness analyses, economic evaluation and budget impact analyses. Compounding the issue is that data on resource utilization and cost-effectiveness of different diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for GEP-NETs are scarce. Methods: A systematic review on the economic impact of GEP-NETs was carried out using four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and Cochrane review. Fully published articles from January 2000 to May 2017, in English and Spanish, were included. All articles that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the systematic review; summary descriptive statistics were used to describe the methodological characteristics. Results: The 14 studies selected included cost-of-illness analyses ( n = 4), economic evaluations ( n = 7) and budget impact analyses ( n = 3). Almost all studies were performed in the United States. Healthcare costs for patients with NETs included medication, outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and check-ups/tests. Reducing adverse events is an area where cost savings could be achieved; however, there was not enough evidence on the cost impact of adverse events. Conclusion: There is a lack of data related to resource utilization in the field of GEP-NETs. Therefore, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies of existing and emerging treatments are urgently needed to help the decision-making process for patients with NETs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document