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.

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 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

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 380-387
Author(s):  
Sarah Fontenay ◽  
Lionel Catarino ◽  
Soumeya Snoussi ◽  
Hélène van den Brink ◽  
Judith Pineau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Ventricular Assist

ObjectiveBecause of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.MethodsA systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.ResultsOf the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost–utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15–19) according to the CHEERS checklist.ConclusionThe current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

scholarly journals Cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for the prevention and control of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e027490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Rinaldi ◽  
Alexa Hijazi ◽  
Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains one of the most common chronic diseases of adulthood which creates high degrees of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The incidence of T2DM continues to rise and recently, mHealth interventions have been increasingly used in the prevention, monitoring and management of T2DM. The aim of this study is to systematically review the published evidence on cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions for T2DM, as well as assess the quality of reporting of the evidence.Methods and analysisA comprehensive review of PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct and Web of Science of articles published until January 2019 will be conducted. Included studies will be partial or full economic evaluations which provide cost or cost-effectiveness results for mHealth interventions targeting individuals diagnosed with, or at risk of, T2DM. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Results will be presented using a flowchart following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Graphical and tabulated representations of the results will be created for both descriptive and numerical results. The cost and cost-effectiveness values will be presented as reported by the original studies as well as converted into international dollars to allow comparability. As we are predicting heterogenous results, we will conduct a narrative and interpretive analysis of the data.Ethics and disseminationNo formal approval or review of ethics is required for this systematic review as it will involve the collection and analysis of secondary data. This protocol follows the current PRISMA-P guidelines. The review will provide information on the cost and cost-effectiveness of mHealth interventions targeting T2DM. These results will be disseminated through publication and submission to conferences for presentations and posters.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123476

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of treatments for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filipa Sampaio ◽  
Inna Feldman ◽  
Tara A. Lavelle ◽  
Norbert Skokauskas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
The Cost

AbstractEconomic evaluations can help decision makers identify what services for children with neurodevelopmental disorders provide best value-for-money. The aim of this paper is to review the best available economic evidence to support decision making for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents. We conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations of ADHD and ASD interventions including studies published 2010–2020, identified through Econlit, Medline, PsychINFO, and ERIC databases. Only full economic evaluations comparing two or more options, considering both costs and consequences were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Drummond checklist. We identified ten studies of moderate-to-good quality on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for ADHD and two studies of good quality of interventions for ASD. The majority of ADHD studies evaluated pharmacotherapy (n = 8), and two investigated the economic value of psychosocial/behavioral interventions. Both economic evaluations for ASD investigated early and communication interventions. Included studies support the cost-effectiveness of behavioral parenting interventions for younger children with ADHD. Among pharmacotherapies for ADHD, different combinations of stimulant/non-stimulant medications for children were cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds reported in the original papers. Early intervention for children with suspected ASD was cost-effective, but communication-focused therapy for preschool children with ASD was not. Prioritizing more studies in this area would allow decision makers to promote cost-effective and clinically effective interventions for this target group.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 1356
Author(s):  
Huong Ngoc Quynh Tran ◽  
Emma McMahon ◽  
Marj Moodie ◽  
Jaithri Ananthapavan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Food Retail ◽  
Sales Data ◽  
Health Promoting ◽  
The Cost

Background: While the number of retail interventions with impacts on diet- and/or health-related outcomes is increasing, the economic evaluation literature is limited. This review investigated (i) the cost-effectiveness of health-promoting food retail interventions and (ii) key assumptions adopted in these evaluations. Methods: A systematic review of published academic studies was undertaken (CRD42020153763). Fourteen databases were searched. Eligible studies were identified, analysed, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Eight studies that evaluated 30 retail interventions were included in the review. Common outcomes reported were cost per healthy food item purchased/served or cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Four studies undertook cost-utility analyses and half of these studies concluded that retail interventions were cost-effective in improving health outcomes. Most studies did not state any assumptions regarding compensatory behaviour (i.e., purchases/consumption of non-intervention foods or food purchases/consumption from non-intervention settings) and presumed that sales data were indicative of consumption. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of retail-based health-promoting interventions is inconclusive. Future health-promoting retail interventions should regularly include an economic evaluation which addresses key assumptions related to compensatory behaviour and the use of sales data as a proxy for consumption.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of oral anticancer drugs and associated individualised dosing approaches in patients with cancer: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e047173
Author(s):  
Madelé van Dyk ◽  
Norma Bulamu ◽  
Chelsea Boylan ◽  
Anna M Mc Laughlin ◽  
Ganessan Kichenadasse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Anticancer Drugs ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Individualised Dosing

IntroductionOral anticancer drugs (OADs) have rapidly expanded with more than 70 OADs targeting several molecular targets. Many of the OADs exert an exposure–response relationship but still, a ‘one-size fits-all’ dose is used, ignoring interindividual variability. Several of these OADs share similar mechanisms of actions and thus target the same cancer and has resulted in a substantial research focus on comparing the health benefit of each. However, significantly less is known about the cost–benefit associated with OADs. This paper will provide a protocol to systematically review studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions.Methods and analysisSystematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation (costs and outcomes/benefits) studies of OADs and their associated individualised dosing interventions. Bibliographic databases (eg, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE) will be used to perform the systematic literature search (between 1 January 2000 and October 2020). Only full economic evaluations will be included, but no restrictions on study outcomes will be applied. The quality of included primary studies will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist for reporting economic evaluations. Studies with low-quality evidence will be excluded. A narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies will be undertaken, with a subgroup analysis where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not require ethics approval as there will not be any collection of primary data. Findings of this review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at workshops or conferences and sharing through a media release. Findings from this review will provide evidence to direct and inform policy-makers where cost-neutral strategies may be effective or where dose individualising strategies may be economically beneficial. Additionally, gaps will be identified in the current literature to inform future-related research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020218170.Electronic supplemental materialThe online version of this article contains supplemental material, which is available to authorised users.

scholarly journals The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1123-1131
Author(s):  
Nikita M. John ◽  
Stuart J. Wright ◽  
Sean P. Gavan ◽  
Caroline M. Vass
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Prenatal Testing ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Technological progress has led to changes in the antenatal screening programmes, most significantly the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). The availability of a new type of testing changes the type of information that the parent(s) require before, during and after screening to mitigate anxiety about the testing process and results. Objectives To identify the extent to which economic evaluations of NIPT have accounted for the need to provide information alongside testing and the associated costs and health outcomes of information provision. Methods A systematic review of economic evaluations of NIPTs (up to February 2018) was conducted. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO were searched using an electronic search strategy combining a published economic search filter (from NHS economic evaluations database) with terms related to NIPT and screening-related technologies. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards framework and the results were summarised as part of a narrative synthesis. Results A total of 12 economic evaluations were identified. The majority of evaluations (n = 10; 83.3%) involved cost effectiveness analysis. Only four studies (33.3%) included the cost of providing information about NIPT in their economic evaluation. Two studies considered the impact of test results on parents’ quality of life by allowing utility decrements for different outcomes. Some studies suggested that the challenges of valuing information prohibited their inclusion in an economic evaluation. Conclusion Economic evaluations of NIPTs need to account for the costs and outcomes associated with information provision, otherwise estimates of cost effectiveness may prove inaccurate.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e057171
Author(s):  
Nikki McCaffrey ◽  
Julie Higgins ◽  
Anita Lal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Tobacco Control ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluations

IntroductionThe short-term economic benefit of embedding best practice tobacco dependence treatment (TDT) into healthcare services prior to surgery across different populations and jurisdictions is largely unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the cost-effectiveness of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications compared with usual care. The results will provide hospital managers, clinicians, healthcare professionals and policymakers with a critical summary of the economic evidence on providing TDT routinely before surgery, aiding the development and dissemination of unified, best practice guidelines, that is, implementation of article 14 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature will be conducted from database inception until 23 June 2021 (Cochrane, Econlit, Embase, Health Technology Assessment, Medline Complete, Scopus). Published, English-language articles describing economic evaluations of preoperative smoking cessation interventions for preventing surgical complications will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and two researchers will independently screen results for eligible studies. Any disagreement will be resolved by the third researcher. A narrative summary of included studies will be provided. Study characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results will be extracted by one reviewer and descriptive analyses will be undertaken. A second reviewer will review data extracted for accuracy from 10% of the included studies. Reporting and methodological quality of the included studies will be evaluated independently by two reviewers using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument checklist, respectively.Ethics and disseminationThis research does not require ethics approval because the study is a planned systematic review of published literature. Findings will be presented at health economic, public health and tobacco control conferences, published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated via social media.Trial registration numberCRD42021257740.

scholarly journals Pharmacogenetic testing for adverse drug reaction prevention: systematic review of economic evaluations and the appraisal of quality matters for clinical practice and implementation

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saowalak Turongkaravee ◽  
Jiraphun Jittikoon ◽  
Onwipa Rochanathimoke ◽  
Kathleen Boyd ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Pharmacogenetic Testing ◽  
Hierarchy Of Evidence

Abstract Background Genetic testing has potential roles in identifying whether an individual would have risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from a particular medicine. Robust cost-effectiveness results on genetic testing would be useful for clinical practice and policy decision-making on allocating resources effectively. This study aimed to update a systematic review on economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to prevent ADRs and critically appraise the quality of reporting and sources of evidence for model input parameters. Methods We searched studies through Medline via PubMed, Scopus and CRD’s NHS Economic Evaluation up to October 2019. Studies investigating polymorphism-based pharmacogenetic testing, which guided drug therapies to prevent ADRs, using economic evaluation methods were included. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and assessed the quality of reporting using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines and the quality of data sources using the hierarchy of evidence developed by Cooper et al. Results Fifty-nine economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing to avoid drug-induced ADRs were found between 2002 and 2018. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common methods of economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing. Most studies complied with the CHEERS checklist, except for single study-based economic evaluations which did not report uncertainty analysis (78%). There was a lack of high-quality evidence not only for estimating the clinical effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing, but also baseline clinical data. About 14% of the studies obtained clinical effectiveness data of testing from a meta-analysis of case-control studies with direct comparison, which was not listed in the hierarchy of evidence used. Conclusions Our review suggested that future single study-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic testing should report uncertainty analysis, as this could significantly affect the robustness of economic evaluation results. A specific ranking system for the quality of evidence is needed for the economic evaluation of pharmacogenetic testing of ADRs. Differences in parameters, methods and outcomes across studies, as well as population-level and system-level differences, may lead to the difficulty of comparing cost-effectiveness results across countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document