Effectiveness of revascularization interventions compared with medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review protocol

Economical Evaluation of Cancer Types Using Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Compared to 3D Conformal Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review

Background

Cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide. Economic evaluation of cancer treatment to reduce costs can save the health care system millions of dollars while optimizing care. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to study the economic evaluation of cancer treatment using intermediate intensity radiation therapy (IMRT) compared to conventional 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT).

Methods

Literatures from PubMed, Embase, Cochran Library, Google scholar, Scopus and Iranian databases were retrieved since Jan 2000 to Apr 2020 for eligible English studies. The quality of the studies was evaluated using Cheers' checklist and then the textual data were analyzed manually by content analysis method.

Results

Overall, 1790 articles were retrieved, of which 12 studies were reviewed. The article quality score ranged from 14.5 to 23 out of a maximum of 24 points. Eleven studies referred to cost-effectiveness analysis and one study referred to cost-utility analysis. Studies have been conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Hungary. IMRT appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for rectal cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, and localized carcinoma of the pharynx, and for prostate cancer in terms of prolonging survival, but it is a cost-effective treatment strategy for head cancer. In addition, the neck was not in India's cancer control program.

Conclusion

The results can help to decide whether to use radiation therapy and radiotherapy in the standard treatment path. Furthermore, they underline that IMRT treatment technique was cost effective for a long-time care service.

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

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality could be prevented via the population-based and cost-effective interventions. A fixed-dose combination treatment is known as the polypill for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD has come up in recent years.

PURPOSE

In order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations, this systematic review aimed to review and assess the quality of published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of polypill in primary and secondary prevention of CVD, to identify the key drivers that impact the cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature, following the PRISMA guidelines, was undertaken in the electronic databases. Two researchers identified the relevant studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of included studies. ICERs value adjusted to 2020 United States Dollar using consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parity (PPP). Finally, data were summarized via a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

In total, 24 articles were identified based on the determined inclusion criteria. All studies met more than 50% of the CHEERS criteria. Adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied from 24$ to 31000$(2020 US dollar) among the studies. The polypill resulted in the improved adherence and quality of life, at a price equal to or lower than multiple monotherapies. This price is typically below the commonly accepted thresholds or cost saving in both, primary and secondary prevention of CVD. The main identified cost-effectiveness drivers were the polypill price, adherence, age, CVD risk, and drug combination.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that the polypill seemed to be a cost-effective intervention in primary and secondary prevention of CVD. However, it is necessary to conduct more economic evaluation studies based on the long-term clinical trials with large populations. Also, studies should consider how the polypill interacts with other primary and secondary preventive strategies as a complementary health strategy.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stature Growth Complications in β-thalassemia Major Patients

Background

Blood transfusion is a traditional treatment for β-thalassemia (β-thal) that improves the patients' anemia and lifespan, but it may lead to iron overload in parenchymal tissue organs and endocrine glands that cause their dysfunctions as the iron regulatory system can't excrete excess iron from the bloodstream.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence of iron-related complications (short stature, growth retardation, and growth hormone deficiency) in β-thalassemia major (βTM) patients.

Methods

We performed an electronic search in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences to evaluate the prevalence of growth hormone impairment in β-thalassemia major (βTM) patients worldwide. Qualities of eligible studies were assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for the prevalence study. We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2) to calculate the event rate with 95% CIs, using a random-effects model for all analyses.

Findings

Seventy-four studies were included from five continents between 1978 and 2019; 70.27% (Asia), 16.21% (Europe), 6.75% (Africa), 2.70% (America), 1.35% (Oceania), and 2.70% (Multicenter). The overall mean age of the participants was about 14 years. The pooled prevalence of short stature (ST) was 48.9% (95% CI 35.3-62.6) and in male was higher than female (61.9%, 95% CI 53.4-69.7 vs. 50.9%, CI 41.8-59.9). The pooled prevalence of growth retardation (GR) was 41.1% and in male was higher than in female (51.6%, 95% CI 17.8-84 vs. 33.1%, CI 9.4-70.2). The pooled prevalence of growth hormone deficiency (GHD) was 26.6% (95% CI 16-40.8).

Conclusion

Our study revealed that near half of thalassemia patients suffer from growth impairments. However, regular evaluation of serum ferritin levels, close monitoring in a proper institute, suitable and acceptable treatment methods besides regular chelation therapy could significantly reduce the patients' complications.

Medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary intervention in ischemic heart disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Ischemic heart disease is categorized into two acute and chronic groups, and its treatments include revascularization and medical therapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the economic burden of medical therapy compared to percutaneous coronary intervention in ischemic heart disease.

Methods: This study has been done in two steps. The first was a systematic review and meta-analysis to measure the effectiveness of two interventions and the second step was a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of society. The data analysis included a meta-analysis and the Markov cohort simulation. RewMan v5 and tree age software were utilized. Uncertainties related to the model parameters were evaluated using one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses.

Results: Regarding the effectiveness of interventions, the odd ratio of the quality of life in the medical therapy group (CI: 0.76-1.10) was 0.91 times the PCI group (p=0.34). This rate for mortality in medical therapy (CI: 0.52-9.68) was 2.23 times more than the PCI group; this result was not significant (p=0.02). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost-effectiveness threshold was $ 16,482; ICER in increasing the QoL and reduction in the mortality rate was $ 25320.11 and $ 562.6691, respectively. Regarding the sensitivity analysis, the model was not sensitive in changing parameters in a specific domain.

Conclusion: According to this study, PCI is more cost-effective than medical therapy in the reduction of mortality rate and in the field of increasing quality of life. MT strategy is more cost-effective than the PCI. This study considers controversies regarding the most appropriate treatment for patients with ischemic heart disease that is helpful for health policymakers, cardiologists and health managers.

Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention compared to medical therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has significant social and economic implications. It is necessary to create tools to identify the most cost-effectiveness treatments, which can assist clinicians in their therapeutic decisions so that the maximum possible benefit is reached with the lowest possible cost. Effectiveness must be measured by final treatment goals in which the most effective interventions are those with the lowest costs. This study is aimed to systematically review and compare the studies conducted on the cost-effectiveness of the three coronary artery disease treatment strategies (medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft). In this systematic review, the databases NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Embase, MEDLINE, Science Direct, and Scopus were searched for studies on the cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to medical therapy (MT) in patients with coronary artery disease between 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2018. The quality appraisal of the included studies was examined using the Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Out of 186 unique retrievals, 8 studies were included. The results showed that the all studies clearly stated the time horizon of the study and included direct medical costs in their analysis. In addition, in most of the studies, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were the main outcome used for measuring the effectiveness. The studies reported various ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); accordingly, the highest ratio was observed in the USA ($212,800) for PCI v MT and the lowest ratio was observed in Brazil ($4403) for CABG v MT. Although the results of the studies were different in terms of a number of aspects, such as the viewpoint of the study, the study horizons, and the costs of expenditure items, they reached similar results. Based on the result of the present study, it seems that each three treatment strategies for CAD yielded improvements in QALY.

Comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Determining the effectiveness of cardiovascular interventions plays an important role in reimbursement decisions, health care pricing, and providing clinical guidance on the use of existing clinical technologies. This study aimed to review and analyze the effectiveness of revascularization interventions (CABG and PCI) compared to medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Methods: Different databases were searched up to December 2017. The articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality of all studies was evaluated by Jadad score and relevant checklists. The I2 test was used to test heterogeneity. Also, to integrate the results of similar studies, meta-analysis was done using STATA software.

Results: A total of 18 studies were included. Based on the random effects model, the overall results of comparing the effectiveness of revascularization interventions with medical therapy were as follow: 38.94 [95% CI: 26.95-50.94, p<0.001, I² = 99.6%, p<0.001], [75.31, 95% CI: 74.06-76.57, p<0.001, I²= 88.8, p<0.001], and 75.76 [95% CI: 71.99-79.53, p<0.001, I2= 99.2, p<0.001] for cardiac mortality rate, quality of life, and 5-year survival, respectively. Also, in patient satisfaction index, revascularization interventions were shown to be more effective than medical therapy.

Conclusion: This study showed that revascularization interventions in all studied indices were more effective than medical therapy. Also, between revascularization interventions, PCI was more effective in cardiovascular mortality and 5-year survival than CABG in terms of quality of life. Moreover, CABG was more effective than PCI. In patient satisfaction index, the results of the 2 included studies were contradictory.