Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Research Articles

PD08 A Systematic Review Of Reporting Quality Of Economic Evaluations In TCM In NRDL Of China Based On CHEERS

IntroductionTraditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has become a common kind of health care in several countries, with increasing demands. This review aimed to appraise the reporting quality of economic evaluations of TCM in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) of China (2020 version), based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.MethodsThe reporting quality of included economic evaluations was assessed by two independent reviewers using the CHEERS statement.ResultsA total of 360 articles were retrieved, but only 38 economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. No articles were compliant with all items of the CHEERS checklist. On average, the included economic evaluations satisfactorily met 10.93 of the CHEERS items (51.31%). The least reported CHEERS checklist items included: “Characterizing heterogeneity”, “Conflicts of interest”, “Discount rate”, and “Study perspective”, with an average score of 0.00, 0.05, 0.08, and 0.16, respectively.ConclusionsThe economic evaluation of TCM is still at an early stage, with an urgent need for improving the reporting quality. To promote the reporting quality of economic evaluations and further development of TCM, multiple measures focusing on reporting formula, policy, training, and new methodology are required.

PD12 Quality Assessment Of Health Economic Evaluation On Screening Programs From China

IntroductionWith the increasing use of health economic evaluation (HEE) in decision-making and health resource allocation and management policy design has seen an increase in HEE studies on screening programs in China l. In addition to the quantity of HEE, the quality may be of particular concern as it influences the reliability of HEE evidence adopted in policy formulation. This study sought to assess the reporting quality of HEE on screening programs over the last 20 years in China and identify potential predictors and relevant recommendations to improve the quality of study reporting.MethodsA search of HEE studies published in PubMed, Embase, CNKI and WANFANG from 2000 to 2021 was performed. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the quality if reporting using the 24 item Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The CHEERS score for each study was converted into standardized 0-1 point scale. General liner regression was used to identify predictors associated with the reporting quality.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean standardized score for the included studies was 0.56 (title), 0.64 (abstract), 0.74 (introduction), 0.58 (methods), 0.40 (results), 0.70 (discussion), and 0.54 (other section). The number and reporting quality of articles published each year showed an overall upward trend. A greater proportion of studies were published in Chinese journal (69.2%), modelling-based (54.9%), conducted by universities/research institutions (45.9%), focused on non-infectious disease (84.2%), using cost-effectiveness analysis method (50.4%), published in non-specialty journal (60.2%), and declaring the funding support (76.7%). Items related to study perspective, discount rate, measurement of effectiveness, currency and price, analytical methods, uncertainty, heterogeneity and conflicts were under-reported. Published year, journal type, first author affiliation and economic evaluation type predicted higher score in regression analyses (p<0.05).ConclusionsOverall, the quantity and quality of HEE on screening programs in China is improving, although there is a need to improve the use of on specific reporting items in the CHEERS criteria. The use of suitable evaluation guidelines will make the decision-making process more scientific.

OP46 Assessing The Quality Of Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations About Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Drugs In National Reimbursement Drug List

IntroductionWith the disease spectrum changing in China, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has become the main chronic disease which affects people’s health severely, bring patients serious economic burden of disease. For T2DM patients, reliable quality of evidence in decision-making are significant, improving the efficiency of the adjustment of the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). Based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), we aimed to evaluate the quality of all published pharmacoeconomic evaluations on T2DM drugs in 2020 NRDL.MethodsBecause the 2020 NRDL came into effect on 1 March 2021, we searched all published pharmacoeconomic evaluations about T2DM drugs in 2020 NRDL before March 2021 in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan fang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), PubMed, and Web of Science. According to the criterion of inclusion and exclusion, all documents were screened and then relevant basic information of targeted documents was extracted. The quality was evaluated by calculating the final scores based on CHEERS. Two reviewers assessed each publication’s quality using the CHEERS instrument and summarized study quality.ResultsA total of 910 papers were searched, and 24 papers were included. These involved six T2DM drugs, specifically IDegAsp, exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. The average score was 18.31, the standard deviation was 3.67, and the average scoring rate was 77.41 percent. Among all items, “characterizing heterogeneity” scored 0.04, least satisfied with requirements. “Setting and location”, “choice of health outcomes” and “assumptions” scored one, most satisfied with requirements. Among the average scores of all parts, “results” scored lowest at 0.55, and “methods” scored highest at 0.85. The Wilcoxon sum-rank tests showed that score rate which represented reporting quality of economic evaluation (EE) was significantly related to “journal type”, “EEs type”, “model choice” and “study perspective”.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluations about T2DM drugs in 2020 NRDL needs to be improved. Improving the quality of literature is the basic guarantee of scientific decision-making in national medical insurance negotiation.

PD10 Quality Of Economic Evaluation Of Coronary Stents Based On CHEERS: A Scoping Review

IntroductionThe study aims to systematically review all articles on the economic evaluation (EE) of coronary stenting, to critically assess the reporting quality, and to summarize the results.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken through seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, Vip data and SinoMed.) from inception until March 2021, to identify economic evaluation articles comparing coronary stenting with other therapies, or among different stenting procedures. After screening articles and extracting data independently, we summarized methods, contents, and outcomes of the included articles and appraised their methodological quality using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. Then, the literature scores were standardized as a proportion of the total score, and stepwise multiple regression was constructed to verify the factors that might influence the quality of literature.ResultsOf the 3,622 publications identified, 59 articles were included in this review. There were 33 cost-effectiveness studies and 26 were cost-utility studies. The quality of the reports varied between studies, with a standardized mean score of 0.76 (0.40-0.98). According to the Cheers checklist, “Introduction” had the lowest overall score (0.53), with many articles deficient in the description of the study’s perspective; “Discussion” had the highest overall score (0.86), with nearly three-quarters of the articles reporting the full content; “Title and abstract”, “Methods”, “Results”, and “Other” scored 0.71, 0.78, 0.74 and 0.66, respectively. According to the results of the stepwise multiple regression model, “Published year”, “National type”, and “Type of economic analysis” research were significantly associated with the quality of literature.ConclusionThe quality of current research reports on the economics of coronary stenting is generally satisfactory, but there is potential for improvement and high quality reports can provide evidence to support decision making for policy makers.

International depiction of the cost of functional independence limitations among older adults living in the community: a systematic review and cost-of-impairment study

BackgroundFunctional independence limitations restrict older adult self-sufficiency and can reduce quality of life. This systematic review and cost of impairment study examined the costs of functional independence limitations among community dwelling older adults to society, the health care system, and the person.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines this systematic review included community dwelling older adults aged 60 years and older with functional independence limitations. Databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EconLit, NHS EED, Embase, CINAHL, AgeLine, and MEDLINE) were searched between 1990 and June 2020. Two reviewers extracted information on study characteristics and cost outcomes including mean annual costs of functional independence limitations per person for each cost perspective (2020 US prices). Quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.Results85 studies were included. The mean annual total costs per person (2020 US prices) were: $27,380.74 (95% CI: [$4075.53, $50,685.96]) for societal, $24,195.52 (95% CI: [$9679.77, $38,711.27]) for health care system, and $7455.49 (95% CI: [$2271.45, $12,639.53]) for personal. Individuals with cognitive markers of functional independence limitations accounts for the largest mean costs per person across all perspectives. Variations across studies included: cost perspective, measures quantifying functional independence limitations, cost items reported, and time horizon.ConclusionsThis study sheds light on the importance of targeting cognitive markers of functional independence limitations as they accounted for the greatest costs across all economic perspectives.

4.G. Workshop: Economic evaluations of public health interventions: from case studies to next methodological steps

Abstract For establishing evidence-based or evidence-informed decision making in health systems, it is essential to determine which public health interventions and health policies are worth investing in, considering that public budgets are always limited. For that purpose, we can use well-established economic evaluation methods based on marginal analysis as cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. While the use of economic evaluations is a common practice in health technology assessment of drug and medical device in many high-income countries, the systematic assessment of public health interventions is marginal and non-compulsory. In fact, if conducted at all, many economic evaluations of public health interventions are performed internally without dissemination outside organisations. In general, there is already some guidance on how to perform and report economic evaluations that can also be used for public health interventions, as the recent update version of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) check list. However, some methodological and implementation difficulties still persist, including insufficient or low-quality data on costs and outcomes (e.g. absence of experimental studies), complexities related to the need of measuring outcomes in the very long term an on aspects beyond the healthcare sector, or high relevance of contextual factors that are difficult to measure. This workshop will take on some examples of economic evaluations of public health interventions and explore how analyses, methods and implementation can be improved in order to allow a more evidence-based or evidence-informed decision making process. Key messages • Economic evaluations of public health interventions could be performed more frequently when it comes to the decision making. Planning and implementation difficulties are highlighted in this workshop. • Methods used in current economic evaluations of public health interventions can still be improved with a correct estimation of costs and outcomes, based on good quality data.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) Versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for Early Stage Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC).

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the non-surgical management of early stage renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) criteria in the Canadian healthcare system. A Markov state transition model was constructed for initial local treatment with RFA or SBRT for early stage, kidney confined, medically inoperable RCC in a hypothetical cohort. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were then calculated to compare the two treatments. The analysis was conducted over 5-year time horizon from the perspective of a publicly funded health system in Canada. Secondary analyses were conducted to assess the effect of small versus large size (< 4 cm vs. > 4 cm) RCC on ICERs. Multiple one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis were conducted. Discounting of 1.5% per year was applied. Over 5 years, SBRT economically dominated RFA with a gain of 4.103 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost of $16,097, compared with 3.607 QALYs at a cost of $18,324 for RFA. The ICER was $4490 CAD less per QALY for SBRT in the base case analysis (BCE). In patients with small tumors (T1a), SBRT compared with RFA was more effective and marginally more costly, resulting in an ICER of $2207 CAD per QALY gained, while for larger tumors (T1b), SBRT was less costly and more effective than RFA, resulting in an ICER of -$22904. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated significant variability in the cost-effectiveness of SBRT versus RFA when parameters were varied, with rates of distant metastasis following RFA or SBRT having the greatest implications on ICERs. Overall, SBRT used as a primary treatment for RCC shows promising effectiveness at an overall reduction in cost compared with RFA in the Canadian healthcare system. The use of SBRT appears to be cost-effective for larger tumors as well as smaller tumors. The validity of these conclusions are highly sensitive to the accuracy of local and distant progression rates reported in previous studies, and may be adjusted as the available data on SBRT and RFA continues to evolve and mature.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES OF PRE-IMPLANTATION GENETIC TESTING

Perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of pre-implantation genetic testing and assess overall quality based on criteria proposed by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

The Cost of Neurodevelopmental Disability: Scoping Review of Economic Evaluation Methods.

The provision of effective care models for children with neurodevelopmental delay or disability can be challenging in resource constrained healthcare systems. Economic evaluations have an important role in informing resource allocation decisions. This review systematically examined the scope and methods of economic models evaluating interventions for supporting neurodevelopment among children with common neurodevelopmental disorders and identified methods of economic models and presented policy implications. This scoping review employed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Four electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible model-based economic evaluations of neurodevelopmental care models published since 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to assess quality of reporting. Data were systematically extracted, tabulated, and qualitatively synthesised across diagnostic categories. Searches identified 1431 unique articles. Twelve studies used a decision analytic model to evaluate care for neurodevelopmental disorders and were included in the review. Included studies focused on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, n=6), autism spectrum disorder (ASD, n=3), cerebral palsy (n=2), and dyslexia (n=1). The most used decision analytic modelling approach was a Markov model (n=6), followed by a decision tree (n=3), and a combination of decision tree and Markov model (n=3). Most studies (n=7) adopted a societal perspective for reporting costs. None of the reviewed studies modelled impact on families and caregivers. Four studies reported cost-savings, three identified greater quality of life, and three identified cost increases.

Facilitating bias in cost-effectiveness analysis: CHEERS 2022 and the creation of assumption-driven imaginary value claims in health technology assessment

The current standards for health technology cost-effectiveness assessment rest on the creation of lifetime assumption-driven modeled simulations for imaginary pricing and consequent patient access recommendations. A recent BMJ paper reports a detailed assessment of 8,192 cost-effectiveness analyses, concluding that industry-sponsored modeled claims were more likely to publish incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below a USD 50,000 threshold than non-industry sponsored studies, supporting the claim that the product was cost-effective. This is unsurprising; indeed, the opposite can occur with a modeled claim deliberately resulting in ICER is excess of USD 50,000. This methodology is well entrenched with the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 guidance for creating imaginary cost-effectiveness modeled claims ensuring the opportunity for deliberately manipulated cost-effectiveness claims. This overlooks limitations imposed by fundamental measurement, rendering assumption-driven simulations redundant analytical exercises. Manipulation of ICERs and claims for cost-effectiveness are mathematically impossible; including cost-utility thresholds, because the preference or utilities supporting creation of quality-of-life years (QALYs) are ordinal scores. Nevertheless, with the promotion of CHEERS 2022, the belief in imaginary modeled value claims is both facilitated and reinforced. With CHEERS 2022, there is a concerted effort, largely in self-interest, to perpetuate the current belief system. This is a self-defeating strategy. Rather than admitting to the deficiencies of assumption-driven simulated imaginary claims, leaders are maintaining that health system decision makers can ignore standards of normal science and fundamental measurement in value claims for pharmaceutical products. This disregard of standards that are commonplace in the sciences and mainstream social sciences perpetuates the opportunity for self-serving modeled claims; where models are a marketing vehicle leading to sponsored systematic bias in formulary submissions. This supports the need for a NEW START paradigm for health technology assessment, focusing on evaluable single-attribute value claims, meeting the required standards for normal science and fundamental measurement.

Facilitating bias in cost-effectiveness analysis: CHEERS 2022 and the creation of assumption-driven imaginary value claims in health technology assessment.

The current standards for health technology cost-effectiveness assessment rest on the creation of lifetime assumption-driven modeled simulations for imaginary pricing and consequent patient access recommendations. A recent BMJ paper reports a detailed assessment of 8,192 cost-effectiveness analyses, concluding that industry-sponsored modeled claims were more likely to publish incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below a USD 50,000 threshold than non-industry sponsored studies, supporting the claim that the product was cost-effective. This is unsurprising; indeed, the opposite can occur with a modeled claim deliberately resulting in ICER is excess of USD 50,000. This methodology is well entrenched with the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 guidance for creating imaginary cost-effectiveness modeled claims ensuring the opportunity for deliberately manipulated cost-effectiveness claims. This overlooks limitations imposed by fundamental measurement, rendering assumption-driven simulations redundant analytical exercises. Manipulation of ICERs and claims for cost-effectiveness are mathematically impossible; including cost-utility thresholds, because the preference or utilities supporting creation of quality-of-life years (QALYs) are ordinal scores. Nevertheless, with the promotion of CHEERS 2022, the belief in imaginary modeled value claims is both facilitated and reinforced. With CHEERS 2022, there is a concerted effort, largely in self-interest, to perpetuate the current belief system. This is a self-defeating strategy. Rather than admitting to the deficiencies of assumption-driven simulated imaginary claims, leaders are maintaining that health system decision makers can ignore standards of normal science and fundamental measurement in value claims for pharmaceutical products. This disregard of standards that are commonplace in the sciences and mainstream social sciences perpetuates the opportunity for self-serving modeled claims; where models are a marketing vehicle leading to sponsored systematic bias in formulary submissions. This supports the need for a NEW START paradigm for health technology assessment, focusing on evaluable single-attribute value claims, meeting the required standards for normal science and fundamental measurement.

Health Care Economic Burden of Treatment and Rehabilitation for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: A Systematic Review.

The clinical, social, and economic impacts of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) on individuals and health care systems are thought to be immense, yet the true costs of care are unknown. The aims of this study are to illuminate the global costs related to the current state of care for NLUTD. A systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cochrane Specialized Urology and Incontinence Registers. Studies reporting the health care costs of NLUTD were identified. All steps of the review were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Costs were converted to 2022 U.S. dollars and reported for different categories of services. A total of 13 studies were included in the final review (12 from high-income economy, and 1 from an upper-middle-income economy). Routine maintenance care varied notably across studies in terms of included services. Annual supportive costs ranged from $2,039.69 to $12,219.07 with 1 study estimating lifetime costs of $112,774 when complications were considered. There were limited data on the costs of care from the patient's perspective. However, catheters and absorbent aids were estimated to be among the costliest categories of expenditure during routine care. More invasive and reconstructive treatments were associated with significant costs, ranging between $18,057 and $55,873. NLUTD incurs a variety of health care expenditures ranging from incontinence supplies to hospitalizations for management of complications and leads to a significant burden for health care systems over the patient's lifetime. Approaches to NLUTD that focus on functional rehabilitation and restoration, rather than on management of complications, may prove to be a less costly and more effective alternative.

Cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose combination pill (Polypill) in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic literature review.

BackgroundA significant proportion of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality could be prevented via the population-based and cost-effective interventions. A fixed-dose combination treatment is known as the polypill for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD has come up in recent years.PurposeIn order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations, this systematic review aimed to review and assess the quality of published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of polypill in primary and secondary prevention of CVD, to identify the key drivers that impact the cost-effectivenessMethodsA systematic review of literature, following the PRISMA guidelines, was undertaken in the electronic databases. Two researchers identified the relevant studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of included studies. ICERs value adjusted to 2020 United States Dollar using consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parity (PPP). Finally, data were summarized via a narrative synthesis.ResultsIn total, 24 articles were identified based on the determined inclusion criteria. All studies met more than 50% of the CHEERS criteria. Adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied from 24$ to 31000$(2020 US dollar) among the studies. The polypill resulted in the improved adherence and quality of life, at a price equal to or lower than multiple monotherapies. This price is typically below the commonly accepted thresholds or cost saving in both, primary and secondary prevention of CVD. The main identified cost-effectiveness drivers were the polypill price, adherence, age, CVD risk, and drug combination.ConclusionsThis systematic review found that the polypill seemed to be a cost-effective intervention in primary and secondary prevention of CVD. However, it is necessary to conduct more economic evaluation studies based on the long-term clinical trials with large populations. Also, studies should consider how the polypill interacts with other primary and secondary preventive strategies as a complementary health strategy.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review

BackgroundThe effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a...

A Systematic Review of the Cost-effectiveness of Perampanel in the Treatment of Epilepsy

A Systematic Review of the Cost-effectiveness of Perampanel in the Treatment of Epilepsy

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Conducted for Interventions to Screen, Treat, and Manage Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada

ABSTRACT Purpose A systematic literature review (SLR) of economic evaluations (EE) conducted for interventions to screen, treat, and manage retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Canada was performed. Methods The SLR accessed the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Health Business Elite, Econ. Lit, NHS EED, and Google Scholar databases over the period 1st January 2000 to 4th August 2021. The key Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms used included: Retinopathy of prematurity, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-utility analysis, Cost of illness, Cost-benefit analysis, Cost minimization analysis, Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, Quality adjusted life years, return on investment, burden of illness, disability adjusted life years, and Economic evaluation. Screening was conducted using Covidence, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Data extraction was performed using MS Excel. Results 1,527 articles were examined with nine (9) papers identified, one (1) from the UK; two (2) from Canada and six (6) from the US. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the main form of EE conducted (n = 5) and telemedicine screening (n = 3) was found to be highly cost-effective for ROP with the ICER values ranging from £446 to £4,240 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in 2021 figures. 73% of included studies complied with the CHEERS checklist for EE. Conclusions ROP screening and treatment strategies reviewed were highly cost-effective. This review may assist eye health policymakers in planning nationwide screening and treatment programs to combat vision loss and blindness due to ROP.

Exploring the effectiveness of family-based interventions for psychosis in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

PurposeOf the 80% people with psychosis living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), up to 90% are left to the care of families. The World Health Organization has recommended the inclusion of families in community-based rehabilitation and while there is evidence of its implementation in LMICs, this has not been reviewed yet. This study aims to describe the key features and implementation strategies of family-based interventions in LMICs, and appraise their effectiveness.MethodsIncluded are people with psychosis in LMICs who receive any form of family-based intervention, compared to their usual or absence of treatment, with patient outcome measures. We searched (August 2021) through Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycInfo, Social Policy and Practice, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as from grey literature and hand-searched records. Risk of bias was assessed through the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs (ICROMS) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), then analyzed narratively.Results27 studies were included from the 5254 records. Psychotherapeutic features, systems approach and task-sharing were key intervention elements. Delivery strategies included preliminary research, sustained family engagement, and cultural adaptation. There were positive health impacts across four outcome domains.ConclusionAll studies recommended family-based interventions, with limitations in heterogeneity and 70% of them rated high risk of bias.OtherReview was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021256856). The authors did not receive funding for this research.

Cost-effectiveness of antenatal corticosteroids and tocolytic agents in the management of preterm birth: A systematic review.

SummaryBackgroundPreterm birth is a leading cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity, and imposes high health and societal costs. Antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) to accelerate fetal lung maturation are commonly used in conjunction with tocolytics for arresting preterm labour in women at risk of imminent preterm birth.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of ACS and/or tocolytics as part of preterm birth management. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase (December 2021), as well as a maternal health economic evidence repository collated from NHS Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo, with no date cutoff. Eligible studies were economic evaluations of ACS and/or tocolytics for preterm birth. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data on cost-effectiveness and assessed study quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.Findings35 studies were included: 11 studies on ACS, eight on tocolytics to facilitate ACS administration, 12 on acute and maintenance tocolysis, and four studies on a combination of ACS and tocolytics. ACS was cost-effective prior to 34 weeks’ gestation, but economic evidence on ACS use at 34-<37 weeks was conflicting. No single tocolytic was identified as the most cost-effective. Studies disagreed on whether ACS and tocolytic in combination were cost-saving when compared to no intervention.InterpretationACS use prior to 34 weeks’ gestation appears cost-effective. Further studies are required to identify what (if any) tocolytic option is most cost-effective for facilitating ACS administration, and the economic consequences of ACS use in the late preterm period.FundingUNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by WHO.

Are Telehealth-Delivered Nutrition Care Interventions Cost-Effective for Managing Chronic Diseases? A Systematic Review of All Payer Perspectives

ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions for improving health outcomes in adults living with chronic disease.MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Embase were systematically searched from database inception to November 2021. Included studies were randomized controlled trials implementing a telehealth-delivered diet intervention in adults with chronic disease compared to non-telehealth (either alone or in combination with an exercise prescription), which reported on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. All studies were independently screened, and data extraction and quality appraisal adhered to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist by two review authors. Data analysis was conducted by grouping studies according to their telehealth modality and payer perspective.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials; five phone-only interventions, three mobile health (mHealth), two online, and one each using a combination of phone-online or phone-mHealth interventions) were included in the review. mHealth interventions were found to be the most cost-effective intervention (in 100% (n = 3) of studies. Across all telehealth interventions analyzed from health system perspectives (n = 10), 60% studies were found to be cost-effective. One of the three (33%) studies analysed from societal perspectives reported that the intervention was cost-effective. Cost-utility analyses (n = 10) found 30% of studies were cost-saving and more effective, making the interventions dominant over usual care. One study reported no difference in costs or effectiveness and the remaining six studies reported increased cost and effectiveness, requiring payers to determine whether the incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained falls within an acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold. Quality of study reporting varied with between 63% to 92%.ConclusionsTelehealth-delivered nutrition care programs appear to be cost-effective from a health system perspective, particularly mHealth modalities for managing chronic disease nutrition care. These findings support telehealth-delivered nutrition care as an effective intervention to deliver high-quality care in a cost-effective way.Funding SourcesNone.

Economic evaluations of health care interventions in oropharyngeal dysphagia after stroke: protocol for a systematic review

Background and purposeOropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects 40–81% of patients after stroke. A recent systematic review on the costs of OD and its 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 reduce clinical complications and costs. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the available literature for healthcare interventions that are efficient or cost-effective in the management of OD.MethodsA systematic review on economic evaluations of health care interventions will be performed on post-stroke patients with OD following PRISMA recommendations. Four bibliographic databases 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 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 synthetised with a narrative method and using tables. Quality evaluation will be done using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.DiscussionThe 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 summarise the current evidence on the relation between cost and benefits associated with the appropriate management of OD in post-stroke patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020136245