Quality Of Health Economic Studies Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus injectable disease modifying therapies in relapsing multiple sclerosis: a systematic review analysis

BackgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous system. There are two types of drugs used to treat this disease: injectable and oral drugs. The present study aimed at systematically reviewing the cost effectiveness of oral versus injectable drugs.MethodsThe researchers searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to find relevant studies. After removing the duplicates, two authors independently assessed the records. The studies that had conducted full economic evaluations of oral versus injectable drugs in MS patients were included. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool was also used to assess the quality of the studies.ResultsThirty studies that had conducted the economic analysis of oral versus injectable therapies in MS patients were included in this review. The QHES scores for all records were generally high (≥ 77) and they were of good quality. The lowest and highest levels of incremental net monetary benefit were respectively obtained through the comparison of Fingolimod and Alemtuzumab (-1,419,333) and the comparison of Teriflunomide and Interferon β-1a (1,792,810). The amount of INMB (incremental net monetary benefit) in the comparisons between oral and injectable drugs showed that the highest and lowest amount of INMB calculated between) Fingolimod and injectable drugs, respectively, compared to (interferon β-1a) 98,253 and (Ocrelizumab) -212,417, the highest amount in dimethyl fumarate is also against (peginterferon β-1a) 191,470 and the lowest against (alemtuzumab) -124,333, Teriflunomide against injectable drugs is the highest against (peginterferon β-1a) 89,956 and the lowest (Ocrelizumab) − 194,169, as well as Cladribine compared to injectable drugs, the highest was compared to (interferon β-1a) 236,430 and the lowest (Ocrelizumab) was 23,965.ConclusionA large number of health economic evaluations of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in MS were available at the international level, the comparison of which was difficult and sometimes contradictory. However, despite the difference in the results, Cladribine tablets were cost-effective in all studies compared with injectable drugs. In addition, the present study could be of great importance for policymakers and other beneficiaries regarding the cost-effectiveness of the aforementioned drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review.

This study aimed to systematically review and critically appraise cost-effectiveness studies on Brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science core collection, and Embase databases were searched until July 3, 2022. We included published full economic evaluation studies on BV for treating patients with HL. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. Meanwhile, we used qualitative synthesis to analyze the findings. We converted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to the value of the US dollar in 2022. Eight economic evaluations met the study's inclusion criteria. The results of three studies that compared BV plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (BV + AVD) front-line therapy with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) showed that BV is unlikely to be cost-effective as a front-line treatment in patients advanced stage (III or IV) HL. Four studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of BV in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) HL after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). BV was not cost-effective in the reviewed studies at accepted thresholds. In addition, the adjusted ICERs ranged from $65,382 to $374,896 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The key drivers of cost-effectiveness were medication costs, hazard ratio for BV, and utilities. Available economic evaluations show that using BV as front-line treatment or consolidation therapy is not cost-effective based on specific ICER thresholds for patients with HL or R/R HL. To decide on this orphan drug, we should consider other factors such as existence of alternative treatment options, clinical benefits, and disease burden.

Cost-Effectiveness of Glucosamine in Osteoarthritis Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic condition that most frequently affects older adults. It is currently the most common disability. The cost of treating an aging population places pressure on the healthcare budget. As a result, it is imperative to evaluate medicines' cost-effectiveness and, accordingly, their influence on health resource allocation. Our study aims to summarize the cost and outcome of utilizing glucosamine in OA treatment. Databases like Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched as part of the identification process up until April 2023. Our primary inclusion criteria centered on the economic evaluation of glucosamine in OA treatments, providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was applied to grade the quality of the studies. Seven qualified studies that discussed the cost-effectiveness of glucosamine with or without other formulations were selected. All of them demonstrated that glucosamine was cost-effective. There was an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when incorporating glucosamine in conventional care. Moreover, patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) was more cost-effective than the other formulations of glucosamine (OFG). Overall, utilizing pCGS was more beneficial than using OFG in terms both of cost and quality of life.

Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health interventions. However, no study has evaluated the findings of cost-effectiveness of these interventions. This study aims to synthesize the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with MSDs. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, AMED, CIHAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Centre for Review and Dissemination were searched for cost-effectiveness of digital health published between inception and June 2022 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results were presented using a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Using the QHES instrument, we found that the mean score of the overall quality of the included studies was 82.5. Included studies were on nonspecific chronic low back pain (n=4), chronic pain (n=2), knee and hip osteoarthritis (n=3), and fibromyalgia (n=1). The economic perspectives adopted in the included studies were societal (n=4), societal and health care (n=3), and health care (n=3). Of the 10 included studies, 5 (50%) used quality-adjusted life-years as the outcome measures. Except 1 study, all the included studies reported that digital health interventions were cost-effective compared with the control group. In a random effects meta-analysis (n=2), the pooled disability and quality-adjusted life-years were -0.176 (95% CI -0.317 to -0.035; P=.01) and 3.855 (95% CI 2.023 to 5.687; P<.001), respectively. The meta-analysis (n=2) for the costs was in favor of the digital health intervention compared with control: US $417.52 (95% CI -522.01 to -313.03). Studies indicate that digital health interventions are cost-effective for people with MSDs. Our findings suggest that digital health intervention could help improve access to treatment for patients with MSDs and as a result improve their health outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the use of these interventions for patients with MSDs. PROSPERO CRD42021253221; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253221.

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review.

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals. Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications. 7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur. The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

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.

EE373 Assessment of Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in India Using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) Score: A Targeted Literature Review

EE373 Assessment of Extent and Quality of Pharmacoeconomic Studies in India Using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) Score: A Targeted Literature Review

A systematic review on the cost‐effectiveness of the computer‐assisted orthopedic system

AbstractComputer‐assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost‐effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost‐effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost‐effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.

Evaluating the quality of the economic evidence in colorectal cancer genomics studies.

The increase in the use of genome-based screening and diagnostic tests adds to the overall costs of oncologic care for colorectal cancer. This, in turn, has resulted in an increase in published economic analyses. Aim: To perform a systematic literature review of the available economic evidence evaluating the value of genomic testing for colorectal cancer and appraise the quality of the economic studies conducted to date. Methods: A systematic review of the literature for economic studies of colorectal cancer genomics from January 2006 through October 2020, and evaluation of study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was conducted. The validated QHES was then applied to a final set of articles that met eligibility criteria. Results: Our search of the literature initially yielded 12,859 records. A final set of 49 articles met our inclusion criteria. The QHES score ranged from 24 to 100, with an average score of 82. Most of the studies (n=40, 82%) scored above 75 and were considered of good quality. Conclusion: Our analysis revealed that most of the economic analyses of colorectal cancer genomic molecular diagnostics in the literature may be of good quality. There is, however, some variation in methodological rigor between the articles.

Health economic evaluation of exercise interventions in people over 60years old: A systematic review.

This systematic review was conducted to examine the cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions in community-dwelling older adults. A systematic search for articles published in English or Spanish was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library that covered the period from the respective start date of each database to October 2021. Methodological quality was assessed with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and quality of economic evaluation with the Quality of Health Economic Studies and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. A total of 12 out of 15 studies on exercise programmes for older adults reported cost-effective results. The most cost-effective training appears to be a multicomponent training programme, including aerobic exercise, muscle-strengthening of lower extremities, and balance and stretching training. The training methodology should be of progressive moderate or vigorous intensity performed at least twice per week with each session lasting 60min for ≥6months. The exercise programme should be delivered as a group-based intervention, doing extra exercise at home to increase the cost-effectiveness. These findings suggest that exercise interventions in non-institutionalized older people are a cost-effective tool. Sex, age, cognitive status, frailty, frequency and training duration could modify the cost-effectiveness of exercise interventions. Systematic review registration. PROSPERO CRD42021231530 (date of registration: 20/02/2021).

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Statin Lipid-Modifying Agents for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease among Patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: A Systematic Review

Background: Non-statin therapies (NSTs) have been shown to provide additional benefits for cardiovascular risk reduction among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but their economic merits have not been confirmed. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSTs for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in T2DM patients.1Methods: A literature search was systematically performed using MeSH terms (Table 1) from January 1990 to January 2021 in ten databases (e.g. MEDLINE, PubMed, and EconLit). Two reviewers independently screened the included studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NSTs versus any comparator. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist was used for quality assessment.2 Cost outputs were adapted to 2019 United States dollars (USD) to facilitate comparisons between studies.3Results: The search identified 21,182 records. Of which, 10,781 records were screened based on the title and abstract, and 185 articles based on the full text (Figure 1). After a full-text review, 12 studies were included in this study, where eight studies evaluated ezetimibe, four evaluated Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, two evaluated fenofibrate, one evaluated nicotinic acid, and one evaluated extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ER-ERN/LRPT). Six out of eight studies considered ezetimibe plus statin to be a cost-effective therapy for patients with T2DM and with or without CVD, three out of four studies suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors were not cost-effective. Fenofibrate, nicotinic acid, and ER- ERN/LRPT were cost-effective. Based on QHES, the majority of economic evaluations had good quality of reporting. The ICERs were consistent in the majority of studies after adaptation to 2019 USD values.1–3Conclusion: The systematic review demonstrated that most cost-effectiveness studies considered NSTs to be cost-effective compared with standard care but not PCSK9 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of CVD in T2DM patients.

POSC286 Methodological Quality and Transferability of Cancer Costs within the MENA Region: A Systematic Review and Secondary Analysis of Published Data

To evaluate the methodological quality of health economic studies reporting cancer costs from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and explore their intra-regional transferability using the case study of cervical cancer (CC).

Noninvasive Fetal RhD Blood Group Genotyping: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

Noninvasive fetal rhesus D (RhD) blood group genotyping may prevent unnecessary use of anti-D immunoglobulin (RhIG) in non-alloimmunized RhD-negative pregnancies and can guide management of alloimmunized pregnancies. We conducted a systematic review of the economic literature to determine the cost-effectiveness of this intervention over usual care. Systematic literature searches of bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) until February 26, 2019, and auto-alerts until October 30, 2020, and of grey literature sources were performed to retrieve all English-language studies. We included studies done in serologically confirmed non-alloimmunized or alloimmunized RhD-negative pregnancies, comparing costs and effectiveness of the intervention versus usual care. Two reviewers extracted data from the eligible studies and assessed their methodological quality (risk of bias) using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and Drummond tools. We narratively synthesized findings. Our review included 8 economic studies that evaluated non-invasive fetal RhD genotyping followed by targeted RhIG prophylaxis in non-alloimmunized pregnancies. Five studies further considered a subsequent alloimmunized pregnancy. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention versus usual care (e.g., universal RhIG or prophylaxis conditional on results of paternal testing) for non-alloiummunized pregnancies was inconsistent. Two studies indicated greater benefits and lower costs for the intervention, and another 2 suggested a trade-off. In 4 studies, the intervention was less effective and costlier than alternatives. Three studies were determined to be of high quality by both tools. Two of these studies favoured the intervention, and one assessed benefits in quality-adjusted life-years. No study clearly examined the cost-effectiveness of repetitive use of fetal genotyping in multiple non-alloimmunized or alloimmunized pregnancies. The cost of genotyping was the most influential parameter. The cost-effectiveness of noninvasive fetal RhD genotyping for non-alloimmunized pregnancies varies between studies. Potential savings from targeted management of alloimmunized pregnancies requires further research.

A Systematic Review of the Economic Evaluations of Belimumab in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

ObjectivesSystemic lupus erythematosus is a heterogeneous, multisystem autoimmune disease. These attributes cause lupus to be a challenging condition to adequately manage, which is further aggravated by the lack of treatment modalities. Belimumab is a full human monoclonal antibody, and its safety and efficacy in lupus management have been demonstrated in a number of randomized clinical trials. However, these gains come at a high cost in an era that is demarcated by soaring pharmaceutical expenditure. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to critically assess the economic evaluations of belimumab. MethodsA systematic review was performed for economic evaluations of belimumab and the retrieved studies were assessed with the quality of health economic studies questionnaire. ResultsA total of 3 studies and 5 abstracts were retrieved. Belimumab demonstrated a consistent favorable economic profile across Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Hong Kong, Canada, and Greece. The sensitivity analyses revealed that the effectiveness of treatment and the discontinuation rate had the greatest effect on the outcome. ConclusionCurrent data underscore a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of belimumab in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Results are consistent across Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Hong Kong, Canada, and Greece, countries for which an economic evaluation was available. Nevertheless, the low number of assessments, along with concerns regarding its long-term effectiveness, underpin areas that necessitate further research.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review

Context: If the diameter of an aneurysm increases by more than 6 cm, the risk of aortic rupture increases by 50% within 10 years. Therefore, rupture of aneurysm, which is usually asymptomatic, can lead to severe complications and increase the risk of mortality. The current study aimed to systematically review studies comparing the cost-effective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) as the primary treatment options for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, and other scientific economic databases. Relevant articles were searched from 1999 to 2020 using keywords, such as “abdominal aortic aneurysm”, “endovascular”, “open surgery”, “rupture”, “economic evaluation”, and “cost-effectiveness”. The quality of articles was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic studies (QHES) checklist; finally, five articles were included in this review. Results: The results of the QHES checklist showed that most studies had a good quality. A third-party payer’s perspective was the dominant perspective in all selected studies, comparing EVAR with OSR. All studies considered the direct medical costs and did not disclose any discount rates, except for one study, reporting a 3.5% discount rate. Almost all included studies found EVAR to be a cost-effective intervention; only one study concluded that EVAR, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of €424,542, was not the best treatment option. Conclusion: In patients with ruptured AAAs, the EVAR intervention improved the quality of life, decreased the mortality rate, and shortened the hospital stay as compared to OSR.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tears: A Systematic Review.

Background:Hip arthroscopy has frequently been shown to produce successful outcomes as a treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears. However, there is less literature on whether the favorable results of hip arthroscopy can justify the costs, especially when compared with a nonoperative treatment.Purpose:To systematically review the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy for treating FAI and labral tears.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched to identify articles that reported the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) generated by hip arthroscopy. The key terms used were “hip arthroscopy,” “cost,” “utility,” and “economic evaluation.” The threshold for cost-effectiveness was set at $50,000/QALY. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) score were used to determine the quality of the studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172991).Results:Six studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy were identified, and 5 of these studies compared hip arthroscopy to a nonoperative comparator. These studies were found to have a mean QHES score of 85.2 and a mean cohort age that ranged from 33-37 years. From both a health care system perspective and a societal perspective, 4 studies reported that hip arthroscopy was more costly but resulted in far greater gains than did nonoperative treatment. The preferred treatment strategy was most sensitive to duration of benefit, preoperative osteoarthritis, cost of the arthroscopy, and the improvement in QALYs with hip arthroscopy.Conclusion:In the majority of the studies, hip arthroscopy had a higher initial cost but provided greater gain in QALYs than did a nonoperative treatment. In certain cases, hip arthroscopy can be cost-effective given a long enough duration of benefit and appropriate patient selection. However, there is further need for literature to analyze willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Cost-Effectiveness of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Systematic Review.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a life-threatening condition which, in the absence of increasing diameter or rupture, often remains asymptomatic, and a diameter greater than 5.5cm requires elective surgical repair. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with AAA through a systematic review of published health economics studies. Using a systematic review method, an electronic search was conducted for cost-effectiveness studies published on AAA (both in English and Persian) on PubMed, Embase, ISI/Web of Science (WoS), SCOPUS, Global Health databases, and the national databases of Iran from 1990 to 2020 including the keywords "cost-effectiveness", "endovascular", "open surgical", and "abdominal aortic aneurysms". The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist. In total, 958 studies were found, of which 16 were eligible for further study. All studies were conducted in developed countries, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and life years (LY) were used to measure the outcomes. According to the QHES checklist, most studies were of good quality. In European countries and Canada, EVAR has not been cost-effective, while most studies in the United States regard this technique as a cost-effective intervention. For example, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values ranged from $14,252.12 to $34,446.37 per QALY in the USA, while ICER was €116,600.40 per QALY in Portugal. According to the results, the EVAR technique has been more cost-effective than OSR for high-risk patients, but the need for continuous follow-up, increased costs, and re-intervention over the long term and for low-risk patients has reduced the cost-effectiveness of this method. As the health systems vary among different countries (i.e. quality of care, cost of devices, etc.), and due to the heterogeneity of studies in terms of the follow-up period, time horizon, and threshold, all of which are inherent features of economic evaluation, generalizing the results should be done with much caution, and policymaking must be based on national evidence.

An overview of the characteristics and quality assessment criteria in systematic review of pharmacoeconomics.

The systematic review of economic evaluations plays a critical role in making well-informed decisions about competing healthcare interventions. The quality of these systematic reviews varies due to the lack of internationally recognized methodological evaluation standards. Nine English and Chinese databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS economic evaluation database (NHSEED) (Ovid), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WangFang, VIP Chinese Science & Technology Periodicals (VIP) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the literature was measured with modified AMSTAR. Data were narrative synthesized. 165 systematic reviews were included. The overall methodological quality of the literature was moderate according to the AMSTAR scale. In these articles, thirteen quality assessment tools and 32 author self-defined criteria were used. The three most widely used tools were the Drummond checklist (19.4%), the BMJ checklist (15.8%), the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (12.7%). Others included the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), the checklist of Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Philips checklist, the World Health Organization (WHO) checklist, the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist, Spanish and Chinese guidelines. The quantitative scales used in these literature were the QHES and PQAQ. Evidence showed that pharmacoeconomic systematic reviews' methodology remained to be improved, and the quality assessment criteria were gradually unified. Multiple scales can be used in combination to evaluate the quality of economic research in different settings and types.