Economic Evaluation Studies Research Articles

Economic benefits of substance use disorder treatment: A systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies from 2003 to 2021

IntroductionThe economic burden of substance use disorder (SUD) is significant, comprising costs of health care and social services, criminal justice resources, loss of productivity, and premature mortality. This study assembles and synthesizes two decades of evidence describing the benefits of SUD treatment across five main outcome domains; 1) health care utilization; 2) self-reported criminal activity by offense type; 3) criminal justice involvement collected from administrative records or self-reported; 4) productivity assessed through working hours or wages earned; and 5) social services (e.g., a day spent in transitional housing). MethodsThis review included studies if they reported the monetary value of the intervention outcomes, most commonly through a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness framework. The search included studies from 2003 to the present day as of this writing (up to October 15, 2021). Summary cost estimates were adjusted using the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect the 12-month benefits per client in USD 2021. We followed the PRISMA methodology for study selection and assessed quality using the Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). ResultsThe databases yielded 729 studies after removing duplicates, and we ultimately selected 12 for review. Studies varied widely regarding analytical approaches, time horizons, outcome domains, and other methodological factors. Among the ten studies that found positive economic benefits, reductions in criminal activity or criminal justice costs represented the largest or second largest component of these benefits (range $621 to $193,440 per client). ConclusionsConsistent with previous findings, a reduction in criminal activity costs is driven by the relatively high societal cost per criminal offense, notably for violent crimes, such as aggravated assault and rape/sexual assault. Accepting the economic rationale for increased investment in SUD interventions will require recognizing that more benefits accrue to individuals by avoiding being victims of a crime than to governments through budget offsets resulting from savings in non-SUD program expenses. Future studies should explore individually tailored interventions to optimize care management, which may yield unexpected economic benefits to services utilization, and criminal activity data to estimate economic benefits across a broad range of interventions.

Economic evaluation of pharmacogenomic-guided antiplatelet treatment in Spanish patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome participating in the U-PGx PREPARE study

BackgroundCardiovascular diseases and especially Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) constitute a major health issue impacting millions of patients worldwide. Being a leading cause of death and hospital admissions in many European countries including Spain, it accounts for enormous amounts of healthcare expenditures for its management. Clopidogrel is one of the oldest antiplatelet medications used as standard of care in ACS.MethodsIn this study, we performed an economic evaluation study to estimate whether a genome-guided clopidogrel treatment is cost-effective compared to conventional one in a large cohort of 243 individuals of Spanish origin suffering from ACS and treated with clopidogrel. Data were derived from the U-PGx PREPARE clinical trial. Effectiveness was measured as survival of individuals while study data on safety and efficacy, as well as on resource utilization associated with each adverse drug reaction were used to measure costs to treat these adverse drug reactions. A generalized linear regression model was used to estimate cost differences for both study groups.ResultsBased on our findings, PGx-guided treatment group is cost-effective. PGx-guided treatment demonstrated to have 50% less hospital admissions, reduced emergency visits and almost 13% less ADRs compared to the non-PGx approach with mean QALY 1.07 (95% CI, 1.04–1.10) versus 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03–1.09) for the control group, while life years for both groups were 1.24 (95% CI, 1.20–1.26) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.19–1.26), respectively. The mean total cost of PGx-guided treatment was 50% less expensive than conventional therapy with clopidogrel [€883 (95% UI, €316–€1582), compared to €1,755 (95% UI, €765–€2949)].ConclusionThese findings suggest that PGx-guided clopidogrel treatment represents a cost-effective option for patients suffering from ACS in the Spanish healthcare setting.

EE565 Health Economic Evaluations on Dengue Vaccine in Indonesia

To conduct economic evaluation study on dengue vaccines combined with the Wolbachia program by simplifying the previous Markov model.

Using Fetal Fibronectin Test to Reduce Hospital Admissions with Diagnosis of Preterm Labor: An Economic Evaluation Study.

Background: Preterm labor and delivery remain a major problem in obstetrics accounting for perinatal morbidity and mortality. The challenge is to identify those with true preterm labor to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. The fetal fibronectin (FFN) test is a strong predictor of preterm birth and can help identify women with true preterm labor. However, its cost-effectiveness as a strategy for triaging women with threatened preterm labor is still debatable. Objective: To evaluate the effect of FFN test implementation on hospital resources by reducing the admission rate of threatened preterm labor in a tertiary hospital, Latifa Hospital, UAE. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of singleton pregnancies between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation who attended Latifa Hospital in the period of September 2015-December 2016, complaining of threatened preterm labor after the availability of an FFN test, and a historical cohort study for those who attended with threatened preterm labor before the availability of an FFN test. Data analysis was performed using a Kruskal-Wallis test, Kaplan-Meier, Fischer exact chi-square and cost analysis. The significance was set at p-value < 0.05. Results: In total, 840 women met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The relative risk of FFN for delivery at term was 4.35 times higher among the negative-tested compared to preterm delivery (p-value < 0.001). A total of 134 (15.9%) women were unnecessarily admitted (FFN tested negative, delivered at term) which yielded $107,000 in extra costs. After the introduction of an FFN test, a 7% reduction of threatened preterm labor admissions was recorded.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Cabozantinib as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

ObjectivesWe first evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with cabozantinib alone as a first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from a US healthcare payer perspective. In the present study, we found that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone for first-line treatment of mRCC. MethodsThis economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the CheckMate 9ER and CABOSUN trials and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using the Log-Logistic model. The cost and health preference data were collected from published literature before. ResultsThe estimated cost for nivolumab plus cabozantinib group was 654 851.32 USD, which was higher than 312 360.47 USD estimated for cabozantinib alone group, resulting in an incremental cost (IC) of 342 490.85 USD. Compared with cabozantinib alone group, nivolumab plus cabozantinib group gains 1.19 QALYs, resulting the ICER was 288 443.23 USD per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested the cost of nivolumab, the discount rate, and the cost of cabozantinib had a great impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of nivolumab plus cabozantinib being cost-effective was 9.9% at a threshold of 150,000 USD per QALY. ConclusionThe findings of this economic evaluation suggest nivolumab plus cabozantinib is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone as first-line treatment for mRCC at WTP thresholds of 150,000 USD per QALY from the perspective of US payers. A substantial price reduction for nivolumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Utility Comparison of Bevacizumab and Aflibercept in the Treatment of Central or Hemiretinal Vein Occlusion in the SCORE2 Trial

Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated. To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO. This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021. Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6). Incremental cost-utility ratio. The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health. While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.

Cost-Effectiveness Rivaroxaban versus Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Knee Replacement Surgery in Iran.

The highest risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) is seen in patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery. One of the most common methods to reduce the risk of thromboembolism in these patients is anticoagulant prophylaxis. Rivaroxaban is one of the anticoagulants that has a lower cost than other anticoagulants and has a significant effect on people's quality of life as it is edible. The study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban as compared with enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in knee replacement patients in Iran. It was a quantitative and economic evaluation study with a cost-effectiveness approach and an applied study because its results could be used directly for policy-making and decision-making in the health system. The study was conducted in 2019 and 2020. This study considered the health system perspective. The study population included all knee replacement patients. The sample included 203 patients referred to Shafa Yahyaeian Hospital and 300 patients referred to Rasoul Hospital in Tehran. The study was conducted in two steps. A systematic review of studies was conducted in the first step. The CHEERS checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the studies in the systematic review. The EQ-5D questionnaire was used in the second step to calculate the QALY, and the cost collection form was used to calculate the direct medical cost. The data were analyzed through a decision tree, and Stata and Tree age pro softwares were the analysis tools. Also, according to the per capita GDP index for Iran in 2018, the incremental cost-effectiveness threshold was considered to be $10,000. The results of this study showed that during the prophylaxis period, rivaroxaban was one and a half times less costly than enoxaparin. Quality of life in uncomplicated conditions were 0.85 QALY for rivaroxaban and 0.69 QALY for enoxaparin. Based on the results of this study, the cost of rivaroxaban during the prophylaxis was $ 160.97 and the quality of life was 0.85 QALY and the cost of enoxaparin was $ 276.07 and the quality of life was 0.69 QALY. The cost difference between the two interventions was $ 115.09 and the outcome difference was 0.16 QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $ 189.40 for rivaroxaban and $ 416.28 for enoxaparin. According to the results of this study, rivaroxaban reduced the duration of hospitalization by an average of 2 days in asymptomatic patients (prophylaxis period) compared to enoxaparin. Rivaroxaban, an oral medication, reduced costs and increased the quality of life in people undergoing knee replacement surgery compared with an enoxaparin injection vial. This drug was less costly for the patient and health systems and its use was cost-effective as a thromboprophylaxis drug following knee replacement surgery.

Health economic evaluation of preventive digital public health interventions using decision-analytic modelling: a systematized review

BackgroundDigital public health (DiPH) provides novel approaches for prevention, potentially leading to long-term health benefits in resource-limited health systems. However, cost-effectiveness of DiPH interventions is unclear. This systematized review investigates the use of decision-analytic modelling in health economic evaluations of DiPH primary prevention and health promotion interventions, focusing on intervention’s design, methods used, results, and reporting quality.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies of decision-analytic economic evaluations of digital interventions in primary prevention or health promotion, published up to June 2022. Intervention characteristics and selected items were extracted based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were then extracted and price-adjusted to compare the economic evaluation results. Finally, the included studies’ reporting quality was assessed by building a score using CHEERS.ResultsThe database search (including search update) produced 2,273 hits. After removing duplicates, 1,434 titles and abstracts were screened. Of the 89 studies meeting the full-text search criteria, 14 were ultimately reviewed. The most common targets were physical activity (five studies) and weight loss (four). Digital applications include text messages, web-based inventions, app-based interventions, e-learning devices, and the promotion of smartphone apps. The mean ICER of the 12 studies using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) is €20,955 per QALY (min. − €3,949; max. €114,211). The mean of reported CHEERS items per study is 81% (min. 59%; max. 91%).ConclusionsThis review only includes primary prevention and health promotion, and thus excludes other DiPH fields (e.g. secondary prevention). It also focuses on decision-analytic models, excluding study-based economic evaluations. Standard methods of economic evaluation could be adapted more to the specifics of DiPH by measuring the effectiveness of more current technologies through alternative methods, incorporating a societal perspective, and more clearly defining comparators. Nevertheless, the review demonstrates using common thresholds that the new field of DiPH shows potential for cost-effective preventive interventions.

Economic evaluation of next-generation sequencing techniques in diagnosis of genetic disorders: A systematic review.

In recent years, massively parallel sequencing or next generation sequencing (NGS) has considerably changed both the research and diagnostic fields, and rapid developments have led to the combination of NGS techniques in clinical practice, ease of analysis, and detection of genetic mutations. This article aimed at reviewing the economic evaluation studies of the NGS techniques in the diagnosis of genetic diseases. In this systematic review, scientific databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, and CEA registry) were searched from 2005 to 2022 to identify the related literature on the economic evaluation of NGS techniques in the diagnosis of genetic diseases. Full-text reviews and data extraction were all performed by two independent researchers. The quality of all the articles included in this study was evaluated using the Checklist of Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES). Out of 20 521 screened abstracts, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean score of the QHES checklist for the studies was 0.78 (high quality). Seventeen studies were conducted based on modeling. Cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-minimization analysis were done in 26 studies, 13 studies, and 1 study, respectively. Based on the available evidence and findings, exome sequencing, which is one of the NGS techniques, could have the potential to be used as a cost-effective genomic test to diagnose children with suspected genetic diseases. The results of the present study support the cost-effectiveness of exome sequencing in diagnosing suspected genetic disorders. However, the use of exome sequencing as a first- or second-line diagnostic test is still controversial. Most studies have been conducted in high-income countries, and research on the cost-effectiveness of NGS methods is recommended in low- and middle-income countries.

Incremental net monetary benefit of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

Objectives This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Methods We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6–11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, −6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I2=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I2=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6–11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I2=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

Tenecteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke

&#x0D; Both included economic evaluation studies (1 from Iran and 1 from Australia) found that tenecteplase was the dominant treatment strategy (i.e., lower costs and higher benefit) compared with alteplase over a lifetime horizon.&#x0D;

Economic evaluations of interventional opportunities for the management of mental–physical multimorbidity: a systematic review

ObjectivesEconomic evaluations of interventions for people with mental–physical multimorbidity, including a depressive disorder, are sparse. This study examines whether such interventions in adults are cost-effective.DesignA systematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL Plus,...

Economic Evaluation of Covid-19 Vaccines: A Literature Review

The Covid-19 epidemic and virus variants affect public health security worldwide continuously. Conducting Covid-19 vaccination economic evaluation by measuring the cost and outcomes helps governments or healthcare departments choose a better policy or adjust the vaccination policy periodically. We systematically reviewed the health economic evaluation studies on different immunization policies of vaccines in Covid-19. It is found that the existing studies still need to be improved. For model design, studies lack compelling predictions of dynamic transmission between epidemiological regions; for parameters, researchers reduce the selection of related indexes in cost calculation to simplify the model; for data collection, some research needs real-world data support. Therefore, comparative research should be conducted more dynamically and sustainably by improving the evaluation's quality and promoting standards and conclusions to strengthen the guiding role of vaccination economic evaluation in policy selection.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Macrophage-Regulating Treatment for Wound Healing in Patients With Diabetic Foot Ulcers From the Taiwan Health Care Sector Perspective

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and subsequent amputation incur enormous health and economic burdens to patients, health care systems, and societies. As a novel macrophage-regulating drug, ON101 is a breakthrough treatment for DFUs, which demonstrated significant complete wound healing effects in a phase 3 randomized clinical trial, but its economic value remains unknown. To assess the cost-effectiveness of an ON101 cream added on to general wound care (GWC; ie, conventional treatments for DFUs, which comprised initial and regular foot examinations, ulcer management, comorbidity control, patient education, and multidisciplinary care) vs GWC alone for DFUs from the Taiwan health care sector perspective. This economic evaluation used a hypothetical cohort of patients with diabetes, with characteristics mirroring those of the participants in the ON101 trial. A Markov state-transition simulation model was constructed to estimate costs and health outcomes associated with the ON101 with GWC and GWC alone strategies over a 5-year time horizon, discounting costs and effectiveness at 3% annually. Costs were in 2021 US dollars. Data were sourced from the ON101 trial and supplemented from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of input parameters and study generalizability. The analysis was designed and conducted from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022. ON101 with GWC vs GWC alone. DFU-related complications, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Patients in the hypothetical cohort had a mean age of 57 years and an uninfected DFU of 1 to 25 cm2 that was present for 4 or more weeks with a Wagner grade of 1 or 2. Over 5 years, the ON101 with GWC group vs the GWC alone group experienced more healing events, stayed for a longer time in the healing state, and had fewer infected DFUs, gangrene, and amputations (eg, 2787 additional healing events and 2766 fewer infected DFU, 72 fewer amputation, and 7 fewer gangrene events in the ON101 with GWC group vs GWC alone group). The ON101 with GWC strategy vs GWC alone yielded an additional 0.038 QALYs at an incremental cost of $571, resulting in $14 922/QALY gained. Economic results were most sensitive to healing efficacy, drug cost, and health utility of the healing state. Cost-saving results were observed in patient subgroups with poor glycemic control, larger ulcer sizes, longer ulcer durations, and current smoking. The ON101 with GWC strategy was considered cost-effective in 60% to 82% of model iterations against willingness-to-pay thresholds of $32 787/QALY gained to $98 361/QALY gained. In this economic evaluation study using a simulated patient cohort, the ON101 with GWC strategy represented good value compared with GWC alone for patients with DFUs from the Taiwan health care sector perspective and may be prioritized for those with high risks for disease progression of DFUs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared with Enalapril in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection (HFrEF). A systematic literature search was conducted searching in major electronic databases from inception to January 1, 2021. All relevant full economic evaluation studies of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril for the treatment of patients with HFrEF were identified using ad hoc search strategies. Mortality, hospital admissions, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life-years (LYQs), annual drug costs, total lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were considered as the outcomes. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) guidelines. The initial search yielded a pool of 1026 articles, of which 703 unique articles were screened, 65 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 15 studies finally included in the qualitative synthesis. Studies show that sacubitril/valsartan reduces mortality and hospitalization rate. The mean of death risk ratio and hospitalization were computed at 0.843 and 0.844, respectively. Sacubitril/valsartan produced higher annual and total lifetime costs. The lowest and highest lifetime costs for sacubitril/valsartan were found in Thailand ($4,756) and Germany ($118,815), respectively. The lowest ICER was reported in Thailand ($4857/QALY) and the highest in the USA ($143,891/QALY). Sacubitril/valsartan is associated with better outcomes and may be cost-effective compared to enalapril for the management of HFrEF. However, in developing countries such as Thailand, sacubitril-valsartan costs must be reduced to yield an ICER below the threshold.

Evidence-based interventions for reducing sickle cell disease-associated morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review.

Sickle cell disease is a lifelong illness affecting millions of people globally, but predominantly burdensome in sub-Saharan Africa, where most affected children do not live to adulthood, despite available evidence-based interventions that reduce the disease burden in high-income countries. We reviewed studies evaluating evidence-based interventions that decrease sickle cell disease-related morbidity and mortality among children living in sub-Saharan Africa. We used the Joanna Briggs scoping review methodological framework and grouped identified evidence-based interventions into preventative pharmacotherapeutic agents, newborn screening and comprehensive healthcare, disease-modifying agents, nutritional supplementation, systemic treatment, supportive agents and patient/carer/population education. We included 36 studies: 18 randomized controlled trials, 11 observational studies, 5 before-and-after studies and 2 economic evaluation studies, with most of the studies performed in West African countries. Included studies suggest evidence-based interventions effectively to reduce the common morbidities associated with sickle cell disease such as stroke, vaso-occlusive crisis, acute chest syndrome, severe anaemia and malaria infection. Evidence-based interventions also improve survival among study participants. Specifically, our review shows hydroxyurea increases haemoglobin and foetal haemoglobin levels, a finding with practical implications given the challenges with blood transfusion in this setting. The feasibility of implementing individual interventions is hampered by challenges such as affordability, accessibility and the availability of financial and human resources. Our review suggests that regular use of low-dose hydroxyurea therapy, sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine chemoprophylaxis, L-arginine and Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and establishment of specialist stand-alone sickle cell clinics could reduce the sickle cell disease-associated morbidity and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa countries.

Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with lymphoma: a systematic review

BackgroundFebrile neutropenia (FN) is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with lymphoma receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is more effective than filgrastim as prophylaxis for FN. However, its usage has been limited because of its higher cost. Pegfilgrastim’s value for money remains unclear.ObjectiveTo systematically review the cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim compared to filgrastim as a primary or secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Google Scholar. The most widely used economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and cost-benefit analysis) were included in the review. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist, and the quality of reviewed articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. Cost-effectiveness data were rigorously summarized and synthesized narratively. Costs were adjusted to US$ 2020.ResultsWe identified eight economic evaluation studies (two cost-utility analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and three studies reporting both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses). Half of these studies were from Europe (n = 4), the other half were from Iran, USA, Canada, and Singapore. Six studies met > 80% of the JBI quality assessment criteria. Cost-effectiveness estimates in the majority (n = 6) of these studies were for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy with high-risk of FN (> 20%). The studies considered a wide range of baseline FN risk (17–97.4%) and mortality rates (5.8–8.9%). Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from US$ 2199 to US$ 8,871,600 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, dominant to US$ 44,358 per FN averted, and US$ 4261- US$ 7251 per life-years gained. The most influential parameters were medication and hospitalization costs, the relative risk of FN, and assumptions of mortality benefit.ConclusionsMost studies showed that pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to filgrastim as primary and secondary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced FN among patients with lymphoma at a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$ 50,000 per QALY gained. The findings could assist clinicians and healthcare decision-makers to make informed decisions regarding resource allocation for the management of chemotherapy-induced FN in settings similar to those studied.

Economic Evaluation of Palliative Care for Patients with Cancer Disease: A Systematic Review.

Background: With the increase in the population of cancer patients and the importance of reducing the economic burden of disease, it is very important to offer solutions that can provide the services needed by this group of patients in the most appropriate way. In recent years, palliative care services have been provided in a wide range of countries for this purpose, and many studies have been conducted to assess its economic and clinical aspects. The current study aimed to systematically review economic evaluation studies that investigate the costs of end-of-life care for cancer patients. Methods: Electronic search was performed in multiple databases and different resources between 2000-2021 based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were Studies consisting of a complete EE, including CEA, CUA, and CBA regarding the EE of palliative care for patients with cancer disease, EE studies carried out by decision analysis models following the EE approach, full-text articles in the English language, and published during 2000 and 2021 and According to our search strategy, the following articles were removed: studies conducted as a partial EE (like those intended to evaluate the effectiveness, cost evaluation, QoL evaluation), articles with poor methodological quality based on the CHEERS checklist, non-English studies, study protocols, articles presented to a conference, and letters to the editor. The quality of the articles was evaluated using a CHEERS checklist. Results: 29 studies were included based on inclusion criteria. Most articles were published during the past decade. All studies were performed in high-income countries (UK= 6 studies, Canada= 5 studies). Most studies (n=7) focused on the health sector. Results of quality evaluation showed that 10 articles had excellent quality (score higher than 85%). Most studies (27 out of 29 studies) concluded that palliative medicine interventions were cost-effective and yielded positive cost-effectiveness results. 20 studies confidently concluded about the costs and benefits of providing palliative care services on cost-effectiveness and cost savings, and 2 studies made such a conclusion with uncertainty. Therefore, palliative care for cancer patients is cost-effective or cost-saving in 85% of studies. Conclusion: Although there are a wide variety of studies, characteristics, and quality of the final studies included in the present study, there are relatively favorable and stable patterns regarding the results. Palliative care is usually less expensive than comparator groups, and the cost difference is statistically significant in most cases, and this treatment is a relatively cost-effective option. However, making the right relevant decision and applying it as a dominant therapy approach in different countries requires further study in larger populations and over a longer period.

Community Guide Methods for Systematic Reviews of Economic Evidence

Community Guide systematic economic reviews provide information on the cost, economic benefit, cost-benefit, and cost-effectiveness of public health interventions recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force on the basis of evidence of effectiveness. The number and variety of economic evaluation studies in public health have grown substantially over time, contributing to methodologic challenges that required updates to the methods for Community Guide systematic economic reviews. This paper describes these updated methods. The 9-step Community Guide economic review process includes prioritization of topic, creation of a coordination team, conceptualization of review, literature search, screening studies for inclusion, abstraction of studies, analysis of results, translation of evidence to Community Preventive Services Task Force economic findings, and dissemination of findings and evidence gaps. The methods applied in each of these steps are reported in this paper. Two published Community Guide reviews, tailored pharmacy-based interventions to improve adherence to medications for cardiovascular disease and permanent supportive housing with housing first to prevent homelessness, are used to illustrate the application of the updated methods. The Community Preventive Services Task Force reached a finding of cost-effectiveness for the first intervention and a finding of favorable cost-benefit for the second on the basis of results from the economic reviews. The updated Community Guide economic systematic review methods provide transparency and improve the reliability of estimates that are used to derive a Community Preventive Services Task Force economic finding. This may in turn augment the utility of Community Guide economic reviews for communities making decisions about allocating limited resources to effective programs.

Economic evaluation: a reader’s guide to studies of cost-effectiveness

BackgroundUnderstanding what an economic evaluation is, how to interpret it, and what it means for making choices in a health delivery context is necessary to contribute to decisions about healthcare resource allocation. The aim of this paper to demystify the working parts of a health economic evaluation, and explain to clinicians and clinical researchers how to read and interpret cost-effectiveness research.Main bodyThis primer distils key content and constructs of economic evaluation studies, and explains health economic evaluation in plain language. We use the PICOT (participant, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe) clinical trial framework familiar to clinicians, clinical decision-makers, and clinical researchers, who may be unfamiliar with economics, as an aide to reading and interpreting cost-effectiveness research. We provide examples, primarily of physiotherapy interventions for osteoarthritis.ConclusionsEconomic evaluation studies are essential to improve decisions about allocating resources, whether those resources be your time, the capacity of your service, or the available funding across the entire healthcare system. The PICOT framework can be used to understand and interpret cost-effectiveness research.