A literature review of reporting standards of HIV progression models

The cost-effectiveness of treating triple coinfection with HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis C virus

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients infected with HIV and simultaneously coinfected with tuberculosis (TB) and hepatitis C virus (HCV).

METHODS

A mathematical model for HIV coinfection with TB and HCV is introduced. The model was designed to incorporate parameters of control for the coverage of care, which makes it useful for performing cost-effectiveness analysis of public policies. A cost-effectiveness analysis of early medical care of patients with TB and HCV coinfection, with coverage of 0 (basal), 25, 50, 75 and 100%, was performed for the whole cohort of patients and a special analysis was performed in a selected population with triple infection.

RESULTS

The cost per resolved infection and the cost per year of life gained were found to be very cost-effective for the population with triple infection, for all different coverages.

CONCLUSIONS

It is known that treating patients with HIV who are coinfected with TB or HCV implies high cost and low efficacy, but it is possible that the population with triple infections could achieve important benefits in terms of years of life gained.

Use of quality checklists and need for disease-specific guidance in economic evaluations: a meta-review

Economic evaluations have become an essential part of reimbursement decisions in a wide range of countries. To ensure high quality, a variety of checklists with different purposes have been developed and implemented enabling assessment of these evaluations. Three of these checklists are most frequently used and are recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews for critical appraisal (Drummond, CHEC and Philips). Every checklist is developed with a different purpose having, for example, a focus on reporting or conducting and on modeling or trial-based evaluations. This review outlines the heterogeneity in choice and implementation of these quality checklists in an incorrect manner. This ultimately results in under- and even possibly overestimation of quality of included economic evaluations. More guidance in selecting correct checklists suiting the purpose of the quality check is therefore of utmost importance. Moreover, it appears that current checklists are lacking detailed disease-specific guidance resulting in models not correctly reflecting disease progression. Therefore, outcomes indicate that the problem of the wide variability of methodological choices is prevalent in some other disease areas too, regardless of the availability of quality checklists. More international collaboration should therefore be initiated in developing and publishing standardized and open source disease-specific reference models to overcome this problem.