scholarly journals QOLP-09. HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF LOW-GRADE GLIOMA MANAGEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii176-ii176
Author(s):  
Nima Hamidi ◽  
Ajay Fernandez ◽  
Kyle Tuohy ◽  
Alireza Mansouri
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Low Grade Glioma ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Watch And Wait ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND Diffuse low-grade gliomas (DLGGs, WHO Grade II gliomas) comprise 13-16% of all primary brain tumors. Although there has been a paradigmatic shift toward upfront maximal safe resection (MSR) for these heterogeneous tumors, it is important to consider the health economic perspective of this approach, compared with the traditional watch-and-wait approach, as well. OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of the health economic literature on the range of DLGG management options. METHODS Following the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, EMBASE, The Central Registration Depository (CRD), EconPapers, and EconLit were searched for ‘cost-effectiveness’, ‘health economics’ and ‘Low-grade glioma’. Grade I tumors were excluded. Pre-specified variables were extracted. All currencies were converted to USD. RESULTS Among 258 abstracts, 28 were selected for full-text screening, and 3 were selected for this review. A European study evaluated the role of intraoperative electrical stimulation (IES). Although IES was associated with higher direct costs upfront ($38,662.70 vs $32,116.10), this was offset by less long-term indirect costs ($12,222.30 vs $31,927.10; p=0.023), greater QALY (4.8 vs 2.9; p=0.001), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,842.50. Another study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant PCV+RT vs RT alone, finding greater QALY for the former (9.94 vs 5.17) and an ICER of $10,186 per QALY gained. A third study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding 18F-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) PET to MRI, compared to preoperative MRI alone. This resulted in an ICER of $7,193.58 for the baseline scenario (lowest reimbursement) and $10,236.12 for the morbidity-adjusted reimbursement rate scenario (highest reimbursement). There were no studies evaluating the health economics of maximal upfront surgical resection to the watch-and-wait approach. CONCLUSION We found a limited number of studies reporting on the health economics of DLGGs. Given the paradigmatic transition toward more aggressive upfront surgical resection, DLGG-specific health economic analyses are underway.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ADHERENCE INTERVENTIONS FOR HIGHLY ACTIVE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Mathes ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Sunya-Lee Antoine ◽  
Michaela Eikermann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
Highly Active ◽  
Adherence Interventions ◽  
The Cost

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to increase the adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-infected patients in developed countries (WHO stratum A).Methods: A systematic search for comparative health economic studies was conducted in the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CINAHL, HEED, and EconLit. The identified publications were selected by two reviewers independently according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, these were evaluated according to a standardized checklist and finally extracted, analyzed, and summarized.Results: After reviewing the abstracts and full texts four relevant studies were identified. Different educational programs were compared as well as the Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). A critical aspect to be considered in particular was the poor transparency of the cost data. In three cost-utility analyses the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the baseline scenario were each under USD 15,000. The sensitivity analyses with a presumed maximum threshold of USD 50,000/QALY showed a predominantly cost-effective result. In one study that examined DOT the costs add up to over USD 150,000/QALY.Conclusions: It seems that adherence interventions for HAART in HIV-infected patients can be cost-effective. Nevertheless, the quality of the included studies is deficient and only a few of the possible adherence interventions are taken into consideration. A final assessment of the cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions in general is, therefore, not possible.

scholarly journals Can polygenic risk scores contribute to cost-effective cancer screening? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padraig Dixon ◽  
Edna Keeney ◽  
Jenny C Taylor ◽  
Sarah Wordsworth ◽  
Richard Martin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Polygenic Risk ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Economic Studies

Polygenic risk is known to influence susceptibility to cancer. The use of data on polygenic risk, in conjunction with other predictors of future disease status, may offer significant potential for preventative care through risk-stratified screening programmes. An important element in the evaluation of screening programmes is their cost-effectiveness. We undertook a systematic review of papers evaluating the cost-effectiveness of screening interventions informed by polygenic risk scores compared to more conventional screening modalities. We included papers reporting cost-effectiveness outcomes in the English language published as articles or uploaded onto preprint servers with no restriction on date, type of cancer or form of polygenic risk modelled. We excluded papers evaluating screening interventions that did not report cost-effectiveness outcomes or which had a focus on monogenic risk. We evaluated studies using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. Ten studies were included in the review, which investigated three cancers: prostate (n=5), colorectal (n=3) and breast (n=2). All study designs were cost-utility papers implemented as Markov models (n=6) or microsimulations (n=4). Nine of ten papers scored highly (score >75 on a 0-100) scale) when assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies checklist. Eight of ten studies concluded that polygenic risk informed cancer screening was likely to be more cost-effective than alternatives. However, the included studies lacked robust external data on the cost of polygenic risk stratification, did not account for how very large volumes of polygenic risk data on individuals would be collected and used, did not consider ancestry-related differences in polygenic risk, and did not fully account for downstream economic sequalae stemming from the use of polygenic risk data in these ways. These topics merit attention in future research on how polygenic risk data might contribute to cost-effective cancer screening.

Current state of health economic analyses for low-grade glioma management: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyle Tuohy ◽  
Ajay Fernandez ◽  
Nima Hamidi ◽  
Varun Padmanaban ◽  
Alireza Mansouri
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Low Grade Glioma ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
State Of Health ◽  
Current State ◽  
Economic Analyses

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate for older osteoporotic women in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Mori ◽  
Carolyn J. Crandall ◽  
Tomoko Fujii ◽  
David A. Ganz
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Fragility Fracture ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Summary Among hypothetical cohorts of older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two treatment strategies using a simulation model. Annual intravenous zoledronic acid for 3 years was cost-saving compared with biannual subcutaneous denosumab for 3 years followed by weekly oral alendronate for 3 years. Purpose Osteoporosis constitutes a major medical and health economic burden to society worldwide. Injectable treatments for osteoporosis require less frequent administration than oral treatments and therefore have higher persistence and adherence with treatment, which could explain better efficacy for fracture prevention. Although annual intravenous zoledronic acid and biannual subcutaneous denosumab are available, it remains unclear which treatment strategy represents a better value from a health economic perspective. Accordingly, we examined the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid for 3 years compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate (i.e., denosumab for 3 years followed by oral weekly alendronate for 3 years, making the total treatment duration 6 years) among hypothetical cohorts of community-dwelling osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan at ages 65, 70, 75, or 80 years. Methods Using a previously validated and updated Markov microsimulation model, we obtained incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (Japanese yen [¥] (or US dollars [$]) per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) from the public healthcare and long-term care payer’s perspective over a lifetime horizon with a willingness-to-pay of ¥5 million (or $47,500) per QALY. Results In the base case, zoledronic acid was cost-saving (i.e., more effective and less expensive) compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to changes in the efficacy of zoledronic acid or the cumulative persistence rate with zoledronic acid or denosumab. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective were 98–100%. Conclusions Among older osteoporotic women without prior fragility fracture in Japan, zoledronic acid was cost-saving compared with sequential denosumab/alendronate.

scholarly journals Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faith Donald ◽  
Kelley Kilpatrick ◽  
Kim Reid ◽  
Nancy Carter ◽  
Ruth Martin-Misener ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Nurse Specialist ◽  
Clinical Nurse ◽  
Education Experience ◽  
The Cost

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles.Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization).Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012.Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n=11), NP-transition (n=5), NP-inpatient (n=2), CNS-outpatient (n=11), CNS-transition (n=13), and CNS-inpatient (n=1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity.Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

scholarly journals Seizure outcome after radiotherapy and chemotherapy in low-grade glioma patients: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 924-934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan A. F. Koekkoek ◽  
Melissa Kerkhof ◽  
Linda Dirven ◽  
Jan J. Heimans ◽  
Jaap C. Reijneveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Grade Glioma ◽  
Seizure Outcome ◽  
Low Grade

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tears: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712098753
Author(s):  
Cammille C. Go ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
Jeffrey W. Chen ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
David R. Maldonado
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
The Cost

Background: Hip arthroscopy has frequently been shown to produce successful outcomes as a treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears. However, there is less literature on whether the favorable results of hip arthroscopy can justify the costs, especially when compared with a nonoperative treatment. Purpose: To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy for treating FAI and labral tears. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched to identify articles that reported the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) generated by hip arthroscopy. The key terms used were “hip arthroscopy,” “cost,” “utility,” and “economic evaluation.” The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $50,000/QALY. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score were used to determine the quality of the studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172991). Results: Six studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy were identified, and 5 of these studies compared hip arthroscopy to a nonoperative comparator. These studies were found to have a mean QHES score of 85.2 and a mean cohort age that ranged from 33-37 years. From both a health care system perspective and a societal perspective, 4 studies reported that hip arthroscopy was more costly but resulted in far greater gains than did nonoperative treatment. The preferred treatment strategy was most sensitive to duration of benefit, preoperative osteoarthritis, cost of the arthroscopy, and the improvement in QALYs with hip arthroscopy. Conclusion: In the majority of the studies, hip arthroscopy had a higher initial cost but provided greater gain in QALYs than did a nonoperative treatment. In certain cases, hip arthroscopy can be cost-effective given a long enough duration of benefit and appropriate patient selection. However, there is further need for literature to analyze willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document