Consensus Health Economic Criteria Research Articles

Evaluating the Cost-Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of the Methods and Quality of Studies Using Decision Models or Empirical Data.

This review presents a critical appraisal of differences in the methodologies and quality of model-based and empirical data-based cost-utility studies on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) populations. It identifies key limitations and challenges in health economic evaluations on CGM and opportunities for their improvement. The review and its documentation adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Searches for articles published between January 2000 and January 2023 were conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Econlit databases. Published studies using models and empirical data to evaluate the cost utility of all CGM devices used by T1D patients were included in the search. Two authors independently extracted data on interventions, populations, model settings (e.g., perspectives and time horizons), model types and structures, clinical outcomes used to populate the model, validation, and uncertainty analyses. They subsequently met to confirm consensus. Quality was assessed using the Philips checklist for model-based studies and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria(CHEC) checklist for empirical studies. Model validation was assessed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economicdecision models (AdViSHE) checklist. The extracted data were used to generate summary tables and figures. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023391284). In total, 34 studies satisfied the selection criteria, two of which only used empirical data. The remaining 32 studies applied 10 different models, with a substantial majority adopting the CORE Diabetes Model. Model-based studies often lacked transparency, as their assumptions regarding the extrapolation of treatment effects beyond available evidence from clinical studies and the selection and processing of the input data were not explicitly stated. Initial scores for disagreements concerning checklists were relatively high, especially for the Philips checklist. Following their resolution, overall quality scores were moderate at 56%, whereas model validation scores were mixed. Strikingly, costing approaches differed widely across studies, resulting in little consistency in the elements included in intervention costs. The overall quality of studies evaluating CGM was moderate. Potential areas of improvement include developing systematic approaches for data selection, improving uncertainty analyses, clearer reporting, and explaining choices for particular modeling approaches. Few studies provided the assurance that all relevant and feasible options had been compared, which is required by decision makers, especially for rapidly evolving technologies such as CGM and insulin administration. High scores for disagreements indicated that several checklists contained questions that were difficult to interpret consistently for quality assessment. Therefore, simpler but comprehensive quality checklists may be needed for model-based health economic evaluation studies.

A systematic review of the socioeconomic impact of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke

BackgroundMechanical Thrombectomy (MT) is an efficacious treatment for severe acute ischemic stroke patients. However, access to MT is limited in many parts of the world, partly due to economic barriers. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated frame about the socioeconomic impact of MT. MethodsTo carry out this systematic review we used the PRISMA guidelines. We included scientific articles analyzing the socioeconomic impact of MT for acute ischemic stroke, in which MT was compared to best medical therapy (BMT). The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science were used as main sources of information. To carry out the comparative analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used, relating the cost to quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed with the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). ResultsEight hundred thirty-two studies were identified in this systematic review. As a result, studies that used cost-effectiveness analysis show that MT saves costs in the long term and cost-utility analysis show that the cost per QALY is reasonable with a mean ICER value of $14242.36/QALY. ConclusionsMT has a favorable socioeconomic impact, as derived from cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. Therefore, public policies should encourage the implementation of MT for stroke patients around the world.

Use of Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Older-Age Adults: A Systematic Review of Economic Evidence.

Influenza vaccination is an important public health measure that can reduce disease burden, especially among older persons (those aged 65 and over) who have weaker immune systems. Evidence suggests enhanced vaccines, including adjuvanted quadrivalent vaccines (aQIV), may be particularly effective in this group. This study reports the results of a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of aQIV in this population. The review was undertaken and reported in accordance with good practice guidelines. Medline and EMBASE were searched from 2013 to the present. Pre-selected eligibility criteria were employed and quality assessment undertaken using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-extended) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) 2022 checklists. A total of 124 records were returned, with 10 full text papers retained. All were modelling studies and exhibited heterogeneity in approach, perspective, and parameter estimation. Nine papers reported cost-effectiveness ranging from EUR 6694/QALY to EUR 20,000/QALY in evaluations employing a payer perspective and from EUR 3936/QALY to EUR 17,200/QALY in those using a societal perspective. Results remained robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. One paper that reported contrary findings adopted a distinct modelling approach. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a broad consensus as to the cost-effectiveness of aQIV in this population group.

A systematic review on cost-effectiveness of diagnostic methods and treatments for tuberculosis in India

ObjectiveCost-effectiveness of a treatment is based on additional health benefits offered and for a test it is determined by fast and improved diagnosing capacity. Evidence on cost-effectiveness can help in identifying interventions that give optimal value for money and catalyse the effort of eliminating tuberculosis burden. Our objective is to evaluate and identify the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics and treatments for tuberculosis practiced in India from costing studies. MethodsElectronic databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and PlosOne are searched, from Jan 1995 to Jan 2023 based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. Quality of the selected studies is assessed using a consensus health economic criteria checklist. ResultsAmong the twelve studies selected after quality assessment seven studies were on testing methods and five were on treatment interventions. The included, model-based studies used either state transition or decision tree model for cost analysis primarily in a health system perspective. Sputum smear microscopy test being dominated by other testing methods, strategies like public-private with right diagnostic method yields cost-effective results in tuberculosis healthcare. ConclusionFull economic evaluations on interventions for tuberculosis in India are scarce, particularly from patients’ perspective. The study provides holistic knowledge about the economic evaluations of tuberculosis tests and treatments, highlighting its applications and implemental complications for further development of improved strategies and economic evaluation.

Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.

Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear. To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented. Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. Scoping review: We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness: For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. Economic synthesis: Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. Systematic review of implementation factors: Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains. Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps. 651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations. studies explored service delivery models (n = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (n = 32), wider children's workforce (n = 21), continence teams (n = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (n = 42); complementary therapies (n = 15); and psychosocial interventions (n = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators. Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Model and Empirical Data-Based Cost-Utility Studies of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Protocol of a Systematic Review on Methodology and Quality.

This review aims to critically appraise differences in methodology and quality of model-based and empirical-data-based cost-utility studies to address key limitations, opportunities, and challenges to inform future cost-utility analyses of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes. This protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023391284). The review will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guideline for systematic reviews. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Econlit from 2000 to January 2023. Model and empirical data-based studies evaluating the cost-utility of any CGM system in type 1 diabetes will be considered for inclusion. Studies that only report on cost per life year or any other clinical outcome, or reporting only costs or only clinical outcomes studies in type 2 diabetes populations, and studies on bi-hormonal closed loops and do-it-yourself hybrid closed loop devices will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for inclusion. Data on the intervention, population, model settings (such as perspective, time horizon), model type and structure, clinical outcomes used to populate the model, validation, and uncertainty will be extracted and qualitatively synthesised. Quality will be assessed using the Philips etal. 2006 (model-based studies) or Consensus Health Economic Criteria (empirical data-based studies) checklists. Model validation will be assessed using the AdViSHE checklist. Now that CGM is being used more broadly in practice, critical appraisal of existing cost-utility methodology and quality is important to inform future cost-utility analyses of CGM in type 1 diabetes in various settings.

Economic evaluations of non-pharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

To systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for patient with drug-resistant epilepsy. PICOS was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, INAHTA, EHS EED, and CEA Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 to May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title-, abstract- and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4,470 studies were identified of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, while this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One out of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative result in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of RNS in adults. Finally, one study shows promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation. Mean risk of bias assessment score (based on CHEC) was 95.3% and 80.9% for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022). This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, VNS and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, epilepsy surgery seems to be cost-effective. Contrary, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data was available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

Cost-effectiveness of first line nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment.

To assess the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, we conducted a systematic literature review in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whose tumors express programmed death ligand-1, with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the Philips checklist and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. 171 records were identified. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses differed substantially due to the applied modeling methods, sources of costs, health state utilities, and key assumptions. Quality assessment of the included studies highlighted shortcomings in data identification, uncertainty assessment, and methods transparency. Our systematic review and methodology assessment revealed that the methods of estimation of long-term outcomes, quantification of health state utility values, estimation of drug costs, the accuracy of data sources, and their credibility have important implications on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. None of the included studies fulfilled all of the criteria reported in the Philips and the CHEC checklists. To compound the economic consequences presented in these limited number of CEAs, ipilimumab's drug action as a combination therapy poses significant uncertainty. We encourage further research to address the economic consequences of these combination agents in future CEAs and the clinical uncertainties of ipilimumab for NSCLC in future trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intranasal Live-Attenuated Influenza Vaccine for Children: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: The public health burden of seasonal influenza is significant, and influenza vaccination is the most effective preventive strategy. Nonetheless, the recommendation of influenza immunization in the pediatric population is still underrepresented. Our work aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pediatric influenza vaccination with the intranasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Methods: We performed a systematic review of publications from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus, covering the period from 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2022. We searched for economic evaluations that studied the impacts of LAIV among children or the pediatric population. Studies that considered incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per gain in life years, quality adjusted life years, or disability-adjusted life years, were covered. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) Extended Checklist was adopted to check the quality of the included studies. Results: Thirteen studies were included for the final review that were of good or excellent quality. The implementation of influenza vaccination with intranasal LAIV in the pediatric population was cost-effective when compared to the immunization strategies for the elderly and the high-risk groups alone or with no vaccination. The efficacy of LAIV for children, vaccination coverage, and the vaccine price were significant factors to the cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccination for children. Another significant contribution to the cost-effectiveness was the herd immunity arising from pediatric immunization against influenza. Conclusions: The implementation of influenza vaccination in the pediatric population with LAIV is cost-effective. Policymakers and health authorities may consider the evidence on the development of the pediatric influenza vaccination in their immunization schedules.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map.

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions. The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care. We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role. Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations. We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration. Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Evidence base of economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions reducing occupational sitting time: an integrative review

ObjectiveTo review the evidence on the economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions that are designed to reduce prolonged periods of occupational sitting.DesignAn integrative review.Data sourcesThe search was conducted in 11 databases,...

Economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Tobacco consumption and its associated adverse outcomes remain major public health issues, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This systematic review aimed to identify and critically assess full economic evaluations for tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income countries. Electronic databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO and the grey literature, were searched using terms such as 'tobacco', 'economic evaluation' and 'smoking' from 1994 to 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria and the Philips checklist. Studies were included which were full economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income settings. Reviews, commentaries, conference proceedings and abstracts were excluded. Study selection and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was conducted to synthesize the findings of the studies. This review identified 20 studies for inclusion. The studies evaluated a wide range of interventions, including tax increase, nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch/gum) and financial incentives. Overall, 12 interventions were reported to be cost-effective, especially tax increases for tobacco consumption and cessation counselling. There were considerable limitations regarding data sources (e.g. using cost data from other countries or assumptions due to the lack of local data) and the model structure; sensitivity analyses were inadequately described in many studies; and there were issues around the transferability of results to other settings. Additionally, the affordability of the interventions was only discussed in two studies. There are few high-quality studies of the cost-effectiveness of tobacco use control interventions in low- and middle-income countries. The methodological limitations of the existing literatures could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: a systematic review of health economic studies.

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the existing literature on cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes (ERSs).MethodsA systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Main inclusion criteria were: (1) insufficiently active people; (2) ERSs and (3) full health economic evaluations. No publication year limits were applied. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist.ResultsFifteen eligible publications were retrieved, presenting results of 12 different studies. Compared with usual care, ERSs were found to be cost-effective in a majority of the analyses, but with modest health gains and costs per individual. These cost-effectiveness results were also sensitive to small changes in input parameters. Two studies found that ERSs combined with a pedometer/accelerometer are cost-effective, compared with usual ERS practice. Two other studies found that an ERS with phone support and an ERS with face-to-face support might be equally effective, with similar costs.ConclusionAlthough the literature demonstrated that ERSs could be cost-effective compared with usual care, these results were not robust. Based on a small number of studies, ERSs could be optimized by using tracking devices, or by providing a choice to the participants about the delivery mode. There is need for clarity on the effectiveness of and attendance to ERS, as more certainty about these key input parameters will strengthen health-economic evidence, and thus will allow to provide a clearer message to health policy-makers.

EVALUATING THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF DENTAL IMPLANT AND PROSTHESIS INTERVENTIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Aim of this review is to compare cost-effectiveness in the implant and prosthesis for missing teeth, and to explore the methods used in cost-effectiveness analysis using published studies. A systematic review was conducted on cost-effectiveness analysis in the dental implant and prosthesis for single, partial or complete replacement via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library databases. Review was restricted to published articles in English language without time limit. Reporting quality assessment of dental replacement cost-effectiveness analysis used the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) extended checklist guidelines. Of the 526 publications identified initially, a total of 17 studies on the cost-effectiveness of dental implants and prosthesis were included in the systematic review. Of these, 8 (47.1%) were originated in the last four years. Most of articles (n=8, 47.1%) were on the cost-effectiveness for single-tooth replacement. The median of reporting quality of studies, assessed by the CHEC extended checklist is 74% (from 55% to 90%). Ten studies were able to define the most cost-effective among the interventions compared. Most studies were in concurrence that over the long term, dental implants represent a cost-effective treatment option. The methodology for the economic evaluation of prosthetic treatments is quite complex. Although there are concepts such as QAPY and QATY introduced into the literature, their applications have remained rather limited and not developed. The majority of studies were able to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective intervention among the different options compared: this will assist in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation. For edentation, implant was cost-effective treatment option in comparison with dental prosthesis.

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

Cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation in coronary artery disease and heart failure patients: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

This systematic review aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation in comparison with centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Evidence of cost-effectiveness is an important step towards implementation and reimbursement of telerehabilitation services. Electronic databases were searched for economic evaluations of telerehabilitation programmes. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English were eligible for inclusion. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. A total of eight economic evaluations met the review inclusion criteria. The total sample size consisted of 751 patients ranging from a minimum of 46 patients to a maximum of 162 patients per study. Maximal follow-up was 5 years. A total of seven of the eight included studies demonstrated that telerehabilitation could lead to similar or lower long-term costs and are thus as cost-effective as traditional centre-based CR. There is significant heterogeneity between all included telerehabilitation interventions in duration, used technology, cost included and follow-up. Based on these small short duration trials, telerehabilitation may be as cost-effective as traditional centre-based approaches. However, more assessments of the value for money of telerehabilitation in larger and longer RCTs are needed both in high- as low-income countries.

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings. Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened forinclusionby two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679(28/08/19).

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings. Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679 (28/08/19)

Health economic evaluations of interventions to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior at the workplace: a systematic review.

Objective The workplace is an ideal setting to implement public health strategies, but economic justification for such interventions is needed. Therefore, we performed a critical appraisal and synthesis of health economic evaluations (HEE) of workplace interventions aiming to increase physical activity (PA) and/or decrease sedentary behavior (SB). Methods A comprehensive search filter was developed using appropriate guidelines, such as the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist, and published search algorithms. Six databases and hand searches were used to identify eligible studies. Full HEE of workplace interventions targeting PA/SB were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Two researchers independently performed all procedures. Hedges' g was calculated to compare intervention effects. Outcomes from HEE were recalculated in 2017 euros and benefit-standardized. Results Eighteen HEE were identified that fulfilled on average 68% of the CHEC list criteria. Most studies showed improvements in PA/SB, but effects were small and thus, their relevance is questionable. Interventions were heterogeneous, no particular intervention type was found to be more effective. HEE were heterogeneous regarding methodological approaches and the selection of cost categories was inconsistent. Indirect costs were the main cost driver. In all studies, effects on costs were subject to substantial uncertainty. Conclusions Due to small effects and uncertain impact on costs, the economic evidence of worksite PA/SB-interventions remains unclear. Future studies are needed to determine effective strategies. The HEE of such interventions should be developed using guidelines and validated measures for productivity costs. Additionally, studies should model the long-term costs and effects because of the long pay-back time of PA/SB interventions.

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings. Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened forinclusionby two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679(28/08/19).