Partial Economic Evaluations Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness and benefits of perinatal health interventions in high-income settings: A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Despite ongoing efforts, perinatal morbidity and mortality persist across all settings, imposing a dual burden of clinical and economic strain. Besides, the fragmented nature of economic evidence on perinatal health interventions hinders the formulation of effective health policies. Our review aims to comprehensively and critically assess the economic evidence for such interventions in high-income countries, where the balance of health outcomes and fiscal prudence is paramount. We will conduct a comprehensive search for studies using databases including EconLit (EBSCO), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), and PubMed. Furthermore, we will broaden our search to include Google Scholar and conduct snowballing from the final articles included. The search terms will encompass economic evaluation, perinatal health interventions, morbidity and mortality, and high-income countries. We will include full economic evaluations focusing on cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, and cost-minimisation analyses. We will exclude partial economic evaluations, reports, qualitative studies, conference papers, editorials, and systematic reviews. Date restrictions will limit the review to studies published after 2010 and those in English during the study selection process. We will use the modified Drummond checklist to evaluate the quality of each included study. Our findings will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. A summary will include estimated costs, effectiveness, benefits, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We also plan to conduct a subgroup analysis. To aid comparability, we will standardise all costs to the United States Dollar, adjusting them to their 2022 value using country-specific consumer price index and purchasing power parity. This systematic review will not involve human participants and requires no ethical approval. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. We registered our record on PROSPERO (registration #: CRD42023432232).

P.034 Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy: a systematic review

Background: Medically refractory pediatric epilepsy is a disorder that can cause significant financial and physical burden. Although multiple treatments exist, cost-effectiveness remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review to assess cost-effectiveness of treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy and to summarize key issues and areas for further inquiry. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and 6 other databases up to July 2022. We included partial and full economic evaluations (EEs) on treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy. Pairs of reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed quality using the 24-item Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. We extracted data on study characteristics, health outcomes, model design, costs, and treatment characteristics. Results: We identified 37 eligible studies for analysis, 19 of which were partial EEs and 18 were full EEs. Study quality, outcomes reported, treatment comparators, and factors included in cost calculations were common influential factors in study results. Vagus nerve stimulation and cannabinoid oil were the most consistently cost-effective, in 6 of 7 and 1 of 2 studies, respectively. Other treatments were inconsistently cost-effective. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of treatments for medically refractory pediatric epilepsy was not definitive. Consistency in study design and inputs is necessary for future comparison of epilepsy treatment.

Economic Cost of Rehabilitation with Robotic and Virtual Reality Systems in People with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Background: The prevalence of neurological disorders is increasing worldwide. In recent decades, the conventional rehabilitation for people with neurological disorders has been often reinforced with the use of technological devices (robots and virtual reality). The aim of this systematic review was to identify the evidence on the economic cost of rehabilitation with robotic and virtual reality devices for people with neurological disorders through a review of the scientific publications over the last 15 years. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on partial economic evaluations (cost description, cost analysis, description of costs and results) and complete (cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefit) studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The main data sources used were PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (WOS). Studies published in English over the last 15 years were considered for inclusion in this review, regardless of the type of neurological disorder. The critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute for economic evaluation and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to analyse the methodological quality of all the included papers. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this review. Ten papers were focused on robotics and five on virtual reality. Most of the studies were focused on people who experienced a stroke. The robotic device most frequently used in the papers included was InMotion® (Bionik Co., Watertown, MA, USA), and for those focused on virtual reality, all papers included used semi-immersive virtual reality systems, with commercial video game consoles (Nintendo Wii® (Nintendo Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) and Kinect® (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA)) being used the most. The included studies mainly presented cost minimization outcomes and a general description of costs per intervention, and there were disparities in terms of population, setting, device, protocol and the economic cost outcomes evaluated. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was of a moderate level. Conclusions: There is controversy about using robotics in people with neurological disorders in a rehabilitation context in terms of cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefits. Semi-immersive virtual reality devices could involve savings (mainly derived from the low prices of the systems analysed and transportation services if they are applied through telerehabilitation programmes) compared to in-clinic interventions.

Cost components of school-based oral health-promoting programs: A systematic review protocol.

Oral health-promoting school programs play a crucial role in achieving universal coverage of oral health care, by addressing oral diseases and promoting the well-being and quality of life of children and adolescents. However, a lack of studies has evaluated the costs associated with implementing these programs, which hinders decision-makers in adopting them on a large scale. This review aims to assess the cost components involved in school-based oral health-promoting programs. This review will include studies that have conducted either partial or full economic evaluations, focusing on describing the cost components of oral health-promoting programs implemented in primary schools involving students aged 6 to 14. A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases: MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, the Virtual Health Library, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. Additionally, gray literature was searched using the Health Technology Assessment Database. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review based on predefined inclusion criteria. Data extraction and critical appraisal evaluation will also be carried out independently by two reviewers. In case of disagreements, the reviewer team will resolve them through discussion. The systematic review resulting from this protocol aims to provide evidence regarding the cost components and necessary resources for implementing and maintaining oral health-promoting school programs. This information can assist decision-makers in adopting these programs on a larger scale and effectively addressing oral diseases among children and adolescents. CRD42022363743.

OP73 Tools That Can Aid Adaptive HTA To Ensure Rapid, Efficient, And Pragmatic Priority Setting: A Scoping Review

IntroductionProducing new health technology assessments (HTA) can be a time-consuming process. With finite resources in HTA agencies, limited capacities in countries without formalized HTA processes, and growing interest for lifecycles approaches valuing health technologies; innovative and efficient HTA processes are needed. “Adaptive HTA”, referring to the pragmatic use of HTA methods and existing (HTA) evidence, might offer solutions. We will present the results from a scoping review that mapped existing tools, methods, practices to transfer existing HTAs; and reflect on these findings given our own experiences of adaptation processes in LMICs.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review and systematically searched five electronic databases. Inclusion of articles followed strict in- and exclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on information regarding tools, methods, and practices that could aid the transferability of HTA analysis. Here, HTAs referred to full-HTAs and other HTA products, as partial HTAs, economic evaluations, or systematic reviews. Lastly, we mapped the possible overarching factors that can affect transferability.ResultsThe search (November 2020) identified 2030 hits, of which 19 were included. Most HTA transfers followed five steps that closely resemble a de novo HTA process. The identified transferability tools, often checklists, were merely aids or a “catalyst” for the transfer and provided limited guidance for the whole transfer process. Contrastingly, we identified three frameworks that can support the whole process: European Network for HTA (EUnetHTA) Adaptation Toolkit, TRANSFER framework for systematic reviews, and paper series on systematic reviews for economic evaluations. Lastly, our findings pointed to various challenges and knowledge gaps; especially for transfers in low and middle income countries evidence is limited.ConclusionsThe re-use of existing evidence in HTA reports is not new; and readily part of de novo and adaptive processes. The innovative nature of adaptive HTA comes from its ability to unpack the process of adaptation and transferability. Simultaneously, this scoping review highlighted gaps in existing adaptive methods, and could aid future adaptive HTA process for experienced and new HTA-doers.

Economic evaluation of CPD activities for healthcare professionals: A scoping review.

ContextContinuing professional development (CPD) activities for healthcare professionals are central to the optimisation of patient safety and person‐centred care. Although there is some evidence on the economics of healthcare professionals training, very little is known about the costs and benefits of CPD.MethodsThis study aimed to review the research evidence on economic evaluations of CPD activities for healthcare professionals. CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Econlit and Web of Science databases were used to identify articles published between 2010 and 2021.ResultsOf the 6791 titles identified, 119 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this scoping review. The majority of articles were partial economic evaluations of CPD programmes (n = 70); half were from the USA. Studies that included multiple professions were most prevalent (n = 54), followed by nurses (n = 34) and doctors (n = 23). Patient outcomes were the most commonly reported outcome (n = 51), followed by change in clinical practice (n = 38) and healthcare professionals' knowledge gain (n = 19).ConclusionsThere is an urgent call for more evidence regarding the economic evaluations of CPD. This is particularly important in view of the rising costs of healthcare globally. The majority of studies included in this review did not provide detailed information on the evaluations and many focused exclusively on the cost of CPD activities rather than outcomes.

Immediate sequential bilateral surgery versus delayed sequential bilateral surgery for cataracts.

Age-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS.Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS. To assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively. We included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA.Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes. With regard to endophthalmitis, we found thatrelative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS.Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, butdid not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.03). Current evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties. Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points). Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909. Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Development of a pharmacoeconomic registry: an example using hormonal contraceptives

BackgroundDisease-specific registries, documenting costs and probabilities from pharmacoeconomic studies along with health state utility values from quality-of-life studies could serve as a resource to guide researchers in evaluating the published literature and in the conduct of future economic evaluations for their own research. Registries cataloging economic evaluations currently exist, however they are restricted by the type of economic evaluations they include. There is a need for intervention-specific registries, that document all types of complete and partial economic evaluations and auxiliary information such as quality of life studies. The objective of this study is to describe the development of a pharmacoeconomic registry and provide best practices using an example of hormonal contraceptives.MethodsAn expert panel consisting of researchers with expertise in pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research was convened and the clinical focus of the registry was finalized after extensive discussion. A list of key continuous, categorical and descriptive variables was developed to capture all relevant data with each variable defined in a data dictionary. A web-based data collection tool was designed to capture and store the resulting metadata. A keyword based search strategy was developed to retrieve the published sources of literature. Finally, articles were screened for relevancy and data was extracted to populate the registry. Expert opinions were taken from the panel at each stage to arrive at consensus and ensure validity of the registry.ResultsThe registry focused on economic evaluation literature of hormonal contraceptives used for contraception. The registry consisted of 65 articles comprising of 22 cost-effectiveness analyses, 9 cost-utility analyses, 7 cost-benefit analyses, 1 cost-minimization, 14 cost analyses, 10 cost of illness studies and 2 quality of life studies. The best practices followed in the development of the registry were summarized as recommendations. The completed registry, data dictionary and associated data files can be accessed in the supplementary information files.ConclusionThis registry is a comprehensive database of economic evaluations, including costs, clinical probabilities and health-state utility estimates. The collated data captured from published information in this registry can be used to identify trends in the literature, conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis and develop novel pharmacoeconomic models.

Health Economic Evaluations of Hip and Knee Interventions in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

Background:The economic burden of musculoskeletal diseases is substantial and growing. Economic evaluations compare costs and health benefits of interventions simultaneously to help inform value-based care; thus, it is crucial to ensure that studies are using appropriate methodology to provide valid evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. This is particularly the case in orthopaedic sports medicine, where several interventions of varying costs are available to treat common hip and knee conditions.Purpose:To summarize and evaluate the quality of economic evaluations in orthopaedic sports medicine for knee and hip interventions and identify areas for quality improvement.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:The Medline, AMED, OVID Health Star, and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to March 1, 2020, to identify economic evaluations that compared ≥2 interventions for hip and/or knee conditions in orthopaedic sports medicine. We assessed the quality of full economic evaluations using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, which consists of 16 questions for a total score of 100. We classified studies into quartiles based on QHES score (extremely poor quality to high quality) and we evaluated the frequency of studies that addressed each of the 16 QHES questions.Results:A total of 93 studies were included in the systematic review. There were 41 (44%) cost analyses, of which 21 (51%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Only 52 (56%) of the included studies were full economic evaluations, although 40 of these (77%) fell in the high-quality quartile. The mean QHES score was 83.2 ± 19. Authors consistently addressed 12 of the QHES questions; questions that were missed or unclear were related to statistical uncertainty, appropriateness of costing methodology, and discussion of potential biases. The most frequently missed question was whether the cost perspective of the analysis was stated and justified.Conclusion:The number of studies in orthopaedic sports medicine is small, despite their overall good quality. Yet, there are still many highly cited studies based on low-quality or partial economic evaluations that are being used to influence clinical decision-making. Investigators should follow international health economic guidelines for study design and critical appraisal of studies to further improve quality.

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 prehabilitation prior to elective surgery compared to usual preoperative care: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations

IntroductionPreoperative functional capacity is an important predictor of postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients’ functional capacity before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes. As prolonged hospital stay and postoperative complications...

Does the use of patient decision aids lead to cost savings? a systematic review

ObjectivesTo update a previous systematic review to determine if patient decision aid (PDA) interventions generate savings in healthcare settings, and if so, from which perspective (ie, patient, organisation providing care,...

Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroplasty Management in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: a Quality Review of the Literature

Musculoskeletal disorders are a leading contributor to healthcare resource use and reduced quality of life, particularly in osteoarthritis of the hip/knee. Consequently, the volume of arthroplasty procedures continues to rise and there is a critical need to identify interventions that provide value-based care. Economic evaluations that assess both cost and health outcomes simultaneously allow clinicians and policymakers to make informed decisions regarding cost-effective interventions. The purpose of this review was to summarize and evaluate the methodological quality of economic evaluations of hip/knee interventions in arthroplasty. We identified 384 studies. Two-thirds did not meet the criteria for full economic evaluations (compared costs independently). Several studies (28%) inappropriately concluded interventions were cost-effective. Using a validated quality assessment tool, we determined the quality of full economic evaluations in hip/knee arthroplasty is generally good; however, important areas for quality improvement are related to reporting perspective, costing methodology, and funding. Value-based care in arthroplasty relies on the quality of the literature. Although the quality is generally good, few full economic evaluations are published in arthroplasty. Yet, these are necessary to appropriately infer intervention cost-effectiveness. Unfortunately, clinical decisions continue to be made using highly cited low-quality or partial economic evaluations.

The economic costs of home parenteral nutrition: Systematic review of partial and full economic evaluations.

Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is indicated in patients with chronic intestinal failure. The aim of the current study was to review existing scientific literature of full or partial economic evaluations associated to HPN. A bibliographic database search was undertaken in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Scopus, complemented by a reference list search. We combined search terms regarding HPN and costs/health economics. The inclusion criteria included: a) population: all population and age groups; b) intervention: partial or full HPN; c) comparator: no parenteral nutrition, continued or intermittent hospital based PN, other nutritional interventions or no comparator; d) outcomes: cost outcomes and economic evaluations associated to HPN. A different quality assessment tool was used for each of the different type of economic approach. Twenty-three papers were included in the final review. 21 were partial economic evaluations (16 cost-of-illness studies and 5 cost analyses), and 2 were full economic evaluations, both cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated costs from a healthcare perspective (n=18), therefore they included only direct costs. Three studies included personal costs for HPN patient. None of the studies included productivity costs. Most scientific literature regarding the economic costs of HPN comes from partial economic evaluations, such as cost-of-illness studies and cost analysis. According to them, HPN is an expensive treatment, although cost saving when compared to hospital based parenteral nutrition (PN). Full economic evaluations proved HPN as being cost-effective than hospital based PN, however more research is needed to confirm this in all settings.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundEmergency telehealth has been used to improve accessibility of rural and remote patients to specialist care. Evidence to date has demonstrated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments within a variety of contexts. However, systematic reviews to date have not focused on the rural and remote emergency departments. The purpose of this study is to review the outcome measures used in evaluations of emergency telehealth in rural and remote settings and assess evidence relating to their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.MethodsRandomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and full and partial economic evaluations (e.g. cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, and cost-utility analyses) of telehealth in rural and remote emergency departments will be included. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases (from 1990 onwards): MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, ProQuest, EconLit, CRD databases (e.g. NHS Economic Evaluation database), and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Registry. Two authors will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. The methodological quality (or risk of bias) of individual studies will be appraised using an appropriate tool. A systematic narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the studies. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis.DiscussionThis review will identify gaps in the current body of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rural and remote emergency telehealth services. By confining to articles written in the English language, this analysis may be subjected to publication bias and results need to be interpreted accordingly. We believe the results of this review could be valuable for the design of future economic evaluations of emergency telehealth services implemented in the rural and remote context.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019145903

Economic Evaluation of a Telemedicine Service to expand Primary Health Care in Rio Grande do Sul: TeleOftalmo's microcosting analysis.

This study evaluated the cost of public telediagnostic service in ophthalmology. The time-driven activity-based costing method (TDABC) was adopted to examine the cost components related to teleophthalmology. This method allowed us to establish the standard unit cost of telediagnosis, given the installed capacity and utilization of professionals. We considered data from one year of telediagnoses and evaluated the cost per telediagnosis change throughout technology adaptation in the system. The standard cost calculated by distance ophthalmic diagnosis was approximately R$ 119, considering the issuance of 1,080 monthly ophthalmic telediagnostic reports. We identified an imbalance between activities, which suggests the TDABC method's ability to guide management actions and improve resource allocation. The actual unit cost fell from R$ 783 to R$ 283 over one year - with room to approach the estimated standard cost. Partial economic evaluations contribute significantly to support the incorporation of new technologies. The TDABC method deserves prominence, as it enables us to retrieve more accurate information on the cost of technology, improving the scalability and management capacity of the healthcare system.

Bariatric surgery is a cost-saving treatment for obesity-A comprehensive meta-analysis and updated systematic review of health economic evaluations of bariatric surgery.

Demand for bariatric surgery to treat severe and resistant obesity far outstrips supply. We aimed to comprehensively synthesise health economic evidence regarding bariatric surgery from 1995 to 2018 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018094189). Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the annual cost changes "before" and "after" surgery, and cumulative cost differences between surgical and nonsurgical groups. An updated narrative review also summarized the full and partial health economic evaluations of surgery from September 2015. N = 101 studies were eligible for the qualitative analyses since 1995, with n = 24 studies after September 2015. Quality of reporting has increased, and the inclusion of complications/reoperations was predominantly contained in the full economic evaluations after September 2015. Technical improvements in surgery were also reflected across the studies. Sixty-one studies were eligible for the quantitative meta-analyses. Compared with no/conventional treatment, surgery was cost saving over a lifetime scenario. Additionally, consideration of indirect costs through sensitivity analyses increased cost savings. Medication cost savings were dominant in the before versus after meta-analysis. Overall, bariatric surgery is cost saving over the life course even without considering indirect costs. Health economists are hearing the call to present higher quality studies and include the costs of complications/reoperations; however, indirect costs and body contouring surgery are still not appropriately considered.

From Evidence to Policy: Economic Evaluations of Healthcare in Malaysia: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveTo identify and describe the various economic evaluation studies in Malaysia and to determine the range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as reported in these studies. MethodsA comprehensive search of the scientific electronic databases was conducted (Medline, EBM Reviews, Embase, and hand search) to identify all published economic evaluation studies related to Malaysian healthcare. Two researchers assessed the quality of selected studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The assessment was also reviewed by expert members of the Technical Advisory Committee of Health Technology Economic Evaluations (TACHTEE). ResultsA total of 64 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and included in this systematic review. Thirty studies were partial economic evaluations; the full economic evaluations included 17 cost-effectiveness analyses and 17 cost-utility analyses. From all the reported ICERs, the majority (68%) were categorized as highly cost-effective (ICER of less than 1 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years gained). ConclusionThis review identifies information gaps and loopholes in health economics research in Malaysia. Additionally, this study provides the information that the majority of published interventions in Malaysia fell within the cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP per capita per quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years gained.

Economic Impact of Etanercept in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis in Spain: A Systematic Review.

IntroductionEtanercept (ETN), a highly effective biological agent for the treatment of psoriasis (PSO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is widely used in Spain. However, evidence of its economic impact is limited, indicating the need for a systematic review of the economic assessments conducted on the use of ETN in the treatment of both PSO and PsA in Spain.MethodsA systematic review was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment reports and not indexed sources up to November 2018. The inclusion criteria were economic evaluations (total and partial) and dose optimization studies published in English or Spanish on the use of ETN to treat PSO and PsA for ETN in Spain.ResultsA total of 402 publications were identified, of which 32 were selected for inclusion in the review; of these 32 publications, 81.3% analyzed PSO (14 full economic evaluations, 5 partial economic evaluations and 7 dose optimization studies) and 18.8% analyzed PsA (1 economic analysis and 5 dose optimization studies). The perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) was used in 90.0% (n = 18) of the full and partial economic evaluations. The time horizons ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years. Reductions in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 50, 75 and 90% (PASI 50, 75 and 90, respectively) were most commonly used as efficacy outcomes in the complete evaluations. The economic impact of ETN ranged from €9110–14,337/PASI 75 at 12 weeks (50 mg/week) to €82,279/PASI 90 at 2 years, depending on the health outcome, time horizon and ETN dose used. Only one study determined the cost of using ETN for the treatment of PSO (€29,430–52,367/QALY for dose 2 × 25 mg/week or 50 mg/week, respectively). Only one partial economic evaluation on PSA was identified (NHS perspective), resulting in an ETN annual cost of €8585/patient-year.ConclusionConsistent evidence on the economic impact of ETN for the treatment of PSO and PSA in Spain is lacking, mainly due to the highly heterogeneous methodology used and the broad range of outcomes found in the economic evaluations published to date.FundingPfizer S.L.U.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-019-0301-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.