A Systematic Review on Cost-effectiveness Studies Evaluating Ovarian Cancer Early Detection and Prevention Strategies

Objectives:The study question was whether dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone is more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis than a two-step procedure with quantitative ultrasound sonography (QUS) plus DXA. To answer this question, a systematic review was performed.Methods:Electronic databases (PubMed, INAHTA, Health Evidence Network, NIHR, the Health Technology Assessment program, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit) were searched for cost-effectiveness publications. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using the Drummond checklist.Results:Seven journal articles and four reports were reviewed. The cost per true positive case diagnosed by DXA was found to be higher than that for diagnosis by QUS+DXA in two articles. In one article it was found to be lower. In three studies, the results were not conclusive. These articles were characterized by the differences in the types of devices, parameters and thresholds on the QUS and DXA tests and the unit costs of the DXA and QUS tests as well as by variability in the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques and the prevalence of osteoporosis.Conclusions:The publications reviewed did not provide clear-cut evidence for drawing conclusions about which screening test may be more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Download Full-text

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of prevention and treatment for eating disorders

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/0004867417739690 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 52 (4) ◽

pp. 328-338 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Long Khanh-Dao Le ◽

Phillipa Hay ◽

Cathrine Mihalopoulos

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Eating Disorders ◽

Anorexia Nervosa ◽

Eating Disorder ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Bulimia Nervosa ◽

Binge Eating Disorder ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Prevention And Treatment ◽

Effectiveness Studies

Background: Eating disorders are serious mental disorders and are associated with substantial economic and social burden. The aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of both preventive and treatment interventions for eating disorder. Method: Electronic databases (including the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Global Health, CINAHL complete, Health Business Elite, Econlit, Health Policy Reference Center and ERIC) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of eating disorder prevention and treatment including papers published up to January 2017. The quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results: In all, 13 studies met the review inclusion criteria as full cost-effectiveness studies and 8 were published since 2011. The studies included three modelled and one trial-based study focused on prevention, two trial-based and one modelled study for anorexia nervosa treatment and three trial-based studies for bulimia nervosa treatment. The remaining studies targeted binge-eating disorder or non-specific eating disorder treatment. The average percent of CHEERS checklist items reported was 71% (standard deviation 21%). Eating disorder interventions were mainly cost-saving or more effective and more costly compared to comparators; however, some results did not reach statistical significance. In the two studies that achieved 100% CHEERS checklist, one study reported that a cognitive dissonance intervention might be cost-effective for prevention of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa with a 90% participation rate and the second study supported lisdexamfetamine to be cost-effective in the treatment of binge-eating disorder. Insufficient evidence for long-term cost-effectiveness (e.g. over 2 years) was found. Conclusion: Cost-effectiveness studies in eating disorder appear to be increasing in number over the last 6 years. Findings were inconsistent and no firm conclusion can be drawn with regard to comparative value-for-money conclusions. However, some promising interventions were identified. Further research with improved methodology is required.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness studies in ovarian cancer

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer ◽

10.1136/ijgc-00009577-200311001-00015 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 13 (Suppl 2) ◽

pp. 212-219

Author(s):

T. D. Szucs ◽

P. Wyss ◽

K. J. Dedes

Keyword(s):

Ovarian Cancer ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

Cost Utility ◽

Chemotherapy Drugs ◽

Pain And Suffering ◽

Acquisition Costs ◽

The Cost ◽

Effectiveness Studies ◽

The Impact

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The costs associated with this cancer impact both on the affected individual and on the health system. Screening is currently unproven as a strategy for improving outcomes for women with ovarian cancer. Randomized controlled trials, however, are underway, estimating any impact of screening with ultrasound and CA125 on ovarian cancer mortality. Paclitaxel and carboplatin combination, the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for ovarian cancer, has not been compared with cisplatin and cyclophosphamide regarding the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, but for paclitaxel and cisplatin, numerous studies have addressed these issues. The estimated incremental costs resulting from these studies fall well within the generally accepted range for new therapies. Although acquisition costs of new chemotherapy drugs exceed those of older drugs, the impact of costly drugs on total costs may be cost saving due to less costs related to supportive and palliative care. The most important costs for the patient, the pain and suffering associated with ovarian cancer and its treatment, are hard to quantify. Nevertheless, patients' quality of life must be considered when making a clinical decision to treat this disease. A review of available cost-effectiveness studies is presented and discussed.

Download Full-text