The Financial Burden of Localized and Metastatic Bladder Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Bladder cancer (BCa) imposes a substantial economic burden on health care systems and patients. Understanding these financial implications is crucial for effective resource allocation and optimization of treatment cost effectiveness. Here, we aim to systematically review and analyze the financial burden of BCa from the health care and patient perspectives.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed/Medline, Embase, and public sources for studies evaluating the financial impact of BCa, encompassing costs, cost effectiveness, and financial toxicity (FT).

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Non-muscle-invasive BCa (NMIBC) incurs significant costs for surveillance and treatment, with costs exceeding $200 000 after 5 yr for high-risk NMIBC patients progressing after bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) treatment (including inpatient, outpatient, and physician service expenses). Muscle-invasive BCa generates substantial costs from radical cystectomy (RC) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, averaging $30 000-40 000 from surgical costs of RC, with additional expenses in case of complications. Trimodal therapy has higher costs (1-yr management cost >$200 000) than RC because of higher outpatient, radiology, and medication costs. Metastatic BCa incurs the highest financial burden, with systemic therapy costs ranging from $40 000 to over $100 000 per five-cycle course, increasing further with combination therapies (ie, enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab), treatment-related toxicity, and supportive care. FT is particularly prevalent among younger, less educated, and minority populations.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

BCa treatment, particularly in advanced stages, imposes a substantial economic burden. Innovations in care, while improving oncologic outcomes, necessitate detailed cost-effectiveness assessments. Addressing these economic challenges is essential for optimizing BCa management, targeting patients at a higher risk of FT, and improving patient quality of life.

Economic evaluations and health economic models of soft tissue sarcomas: Systematic literature review from a European and North American perspective

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a group of solid tumors with over 50 histologic types. They account for < 1 % of new malignancies in adults and ∼2 % of cancer-related mortality. Surgery with or without radiation therapy is applied in localized STS, however, most patients develop local recurrence or metastases after surgery. This study aimed to review the literature on economic evaluations and health economic models in STS.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was performed covering Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO. Searches in grey literature and snowball searches were applied. Studies were eligible if they included patients with STS, contained data on health economic evaluations, had a geographical focus on Europe or North America and were written in English. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023483406).

RESULTS

The review of 1638 records resulted in 22 peer-reviewed articles, 5 HTA agency documents and 2 conference posters. Among these, 19 compared pharmaceutical therapies and the remaining studies focused on diagnostics or surgery related interventions. All studies on pharmaceuticals investigated advanced STS, where patients have metastatic or locally advanced irresectable disease. Economic modelling was used in 25 studies; majority of them used the "traditional" 3-state Markov cohort or partitioned-survival modelling approach (health states: progression-free; progressed; dead).

CONCLUSION

Although a fairly large number of publications are available on the economic evaluation of STS, these mostly focus on a narrow patient sub-group, not eligible for surgery. The applied methodology of modelling, especially for pharmaceuticals, is mostly simplified and universally used across different jurisdictions.

Efficiency of periodontal treatment to improve type 2 diabetes mellitus outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficiency of periodontal treatment (PT) in improving diabetes-related outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and periodontitis, providing an updated and comprehensive synthesis from economic evaluations (EE).

METHODS

Seven databases and one register were independently searched by two reviewers for articles published up to 8 May 2024. Studies that assessed the efficiency of PT versus no treatment or other dental treatments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2, ROBINS-I and ECOBIAS tools for the first stage of EE and the CHEERS checklist and NICE quality appraisal tool for overall EE. Qualitative and quantitative syntheses of the articles were conducted and assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included. PT reduces total healthcare costs, including inpatient and outpatient, diabetes-related costs and other drug costs (low to moderate certainty). A total incremental net benefit of USD 12 348 (2022 currency, 95% CI 12 195-12 500) was estimated from three high-quality model-based cost-utility analyses (high certainty).

DISCUSSION

The inclusion of PT in the comprehensive treatment of patients with T2DM and periodontitis is cost-effective. Future research is required to ensure the transferability of these findings and inform decision makers from different countries.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023443146.

Cost effectiveness of obstructive sleep apnea therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost utility studies

OBJECTIVES

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of nocturnal breathing cessation resulting from upper airway collapse. Given the absence of a comprehensive review of the cost-effectiveness of OSA treatments, we undertook an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts cost-effectiveness analysis registry was conducted. INBp with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed through the Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Study quality was evaluated using the modified ECOBIAS Checklist, and GRADE framework was applied to assess the certainty of outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, fifteen qualifying for meta-analysis. CPAP was cost-effective compared to other treatments, with a INBp of $13,024 (95%CI $6,813 to $19,236), and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 97.48%). Compared to no treatment and oral appliances (OAs), CPAP showed cost-effective INB values of $30,834 ($21,325 to $40,343) and $2,708 ($645 to $4,771) respectively.

CONCLUSION

CPAP is cost effective compared to all treatments collectively, as well as specifically to OAs and no treatment though with low certainty.

Cost Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Current international guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation (CA) as rhythm-control strategies for AF. This study aimed to comprehensively assess economic evaluations (EEs) of the treatment of AF by country income level.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for EE literature until March 30, 2024, with no constraints on time or language. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the data. Full EEs comparing CA with antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm-control treatment were included; surgical or rate-control treatments were excluded. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the ECOBIAS checklist. Costs were converted to purchasing power parity US dollars for 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) based on a heterogeneity test and its degree (I2 > 25% or Cochran's Q test < 0.1). We also explored heterogeneity and potential publication bias and conducted sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies across nine countries were eligible, predominantly from high-income countries (n = 25), with a smaller subset from upper-middle-income countries (n = 2). Because of the heterogeneity among the studies, a random-effects model was selected over a fixed-effects model to pool INBs. Most studies (n = 21) favored CA as the cost-effective intervention, yielding an INB of $US23,796 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15,341-32,251) in high-income countries. However, heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 99.67%). In upper-middle-income countries, the estimated INB was $US18,330 (95% CI - 11,900-48,526). The publication bias results showed no evidence of asymmetrical funnel plots.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, CA emerged as a cost-effective rhythm-control treatment for AF when compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, particularly in high-income countries. However, economic evidence for upper-middle-income countries is lacking, and no primary evaluations were found for low-middle-income and low-income countries. Further EEs are necessary to expand the understanding of AF treatment globally.

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes from rapid start antiretroviral therapy in HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to synthesize clinical and economic outcomes of rapid start versus nonrapid antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people with HIV (PWH) in real-world settings.

METHODS

A search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ProQuest from January 2017 to January 2023, supplementing a previous search by Ford et al . in 2018. Observational studies investigating clinical or economic outcomes of rapid start ART versus nonrapid ART in PWH were included. Clinical outcomes were mortality, loss-to-follow-up (LTFU), and viral suppression. Economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values and per patient per month (PPPM) costs. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed for clinical outcomes, whereas qualitative syntheses were conducted for economic outcomes. The quality of clinical and economic studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two studies were included. The pooled adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for mortality demonstrated a significant reduction in risk of mortality among participants who received rapid start ART compared with nonrapid ART [0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.65-0.98]. For LTFU at 6 and 12 months, the pooled aRR showed increased LTFU for rapid start ART (1.33, 95% CI, 1.15-1.55 and 1.18, 95% CI, 0.74-1.89 respectively). All cost-effectiveness studies reported cost-saving or cost-effective findings. The PPPM costs of rapid start ART across the first 36 months of treatment were consistently lower than nonrapid ART.

CONCLUSION

Rapid ART is associated with reduced mortality and is cost-effective compared with nonrapid ART in real-world settings. Clinicians and policymakers should consider these findings to facilitate rapid start of ART in PWH. Further research on LTFU in PWH is needed.

Economic evaluation of palliative gastrointestinal surgery for advanced cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Palliative surgery reduces debilitating symptoms attributable to cancer, and the intent is to improve health-related quality of life. Malignant bowel obstruction is a common indication. Despite positive clinical outcomes, there is a shortage of economic evaluation evidence to support wider adoption of palliative surgery.

AIM

The aim of this review is to summarize the existing economic evaluation literature for palliative gastrointestinal surgery for advanced cancer patients with malignant bowel obstruction.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and systematic literature searches were performed using PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane. English-language studies comparing cost outcomes of palliative gastrointestinal surgery for malignant bowel obstruction between January 2000 and April 2024 were considered. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 were used to assess the quality of reporting, and Risk of Bias in Model-based Economic Evaluations was used to examine potential risk of bias of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of nine papers were included, with five reporting cost outcomes only and four were full economic evaluations. Methods used, and the conditions included were heterogenous. There was a lack of consistency in methods and reporting deficits relative to the CHEERS 2022 guideline. Multiple potential sources of bias were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of economic evaluations is quite poor. Heterogeneity among studies limits the ability to compare and generalise findings. Future research should strive to standardize methodologies, improve reporting practices, and develop more robust, high-quality economic evaluations that can better inform decision-making in palliative gastrointestinal surgery for malignant bowel obstruction.

Economic Evaluation of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and objective

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a surgical option for localized prostate cancer. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) findings are inconsistent when comparing it with open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy approaches. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of these approaches.

Methods

Relevant CEA studies of RARP were identified by searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International Health Technology Assessment database, Tufts CEA Registry, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 2005 to October 2023. To be included, studies must compare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of RARP versus ORP or LRP, and report the incremental cost per QALY gained. Study characteristics, economic model, costs, and outcomes were extracted. INBs were calculated in 2022 US dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity. A pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model stratified by country income level. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic.

Key findings and limitations

Thirteen studies with 17 comparisons, ten from high-income (HICs) and three from middle-income (MICs) countries, were included. Ten and five studies compared RARP with ORP and LRP, respectively. From a payer perspective, RARP was cost effective but not statistically significant compared with LRP in HICs (pooled INB: $7507.83 [-$1193.03 to $16 208.69], I2 = 81.15%) and not cost effective in MICs (%; -$4499.39 [-$16 500 to $7526.87], I2 = 17.15%). RARP showed no statistically significant cost effectiveness over ORP in both HICs ($3322.38 [-$1864.39 to $8509.15], I2 = 90.89%) and MICs ($2222.60 [-$2960.64 to $7405.83], I2 = 58.92%).

Conclusions and clinical implications

RARP is cost effective compared with LRP in HICs but lacks statistical significance. When compared with ORP, RARP is not cost effective in HICs and MICs. Our findings may support decision-making for prostate cancer treatment options in countries with different health care systems, especially those with limited resources.

Patient summary

Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide important information regarding robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) radical prostatectomy. In high-income countries, RARP is generally cost effective compared with LRP, but not with ORP, while in middle-income countries, RARP is not cost effective compared with LRP or ORP. The findings of this review can support decision-making for prostate cancer treatment options.

A Systematic Literature Review of Modelling Approaches to Evaluate the Cost Effectiveness of PET/CT for Therapy Response Monitoring in Oncology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review addresses model-based cost-effectiveness studies for therapy response monitoring with positron emission tomography (PET) generally combined with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for various cancer types. Given the known heterogeneity in therapy response events, studies should consider patient-level modelling rather than cohort-based modelling because of its flexibility in handling these events and the time to events. This review aims to identify the modelling methods used and includes a systematic assessment of the assumptions made in the current literature.

METHODS

This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Information sources included electronic bibliographic databases, reference lists of review articles and contact with experts in the fields of nuclear medicine, health technology assessment and health economics. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed scientific publications and published grey literature. Literature searches, screening and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to assess the methodological quality. The Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) checklist was used to determine the risk of bias in the included publications.

RESULTS

The search results included 2959 publications. The number of publications included for data extraction and synthesis was ten, representing eight unique studies. These studies addressed patients with lymphoma, advanced head and neck cancers, brain tumours, non-small cell lung cancer and cervical cancer. All studies addressed response to chemotherapy. No study evaluated response to immunotherapy. Most studies positioned PET/CT as an add-on modality and one study positioned PET/CT as a replacement for conventional imaging (X-ray and contrast-enhanced CT). Three studies reported decision-tree structures, four studies reported cohort-level state-transition models and one study reported a partitioned survival model. No patient-level models were reported. The simulation horizons adopted ranged from 1 year to lifetime. Most studies reported a probabilistic analysis, whereas two studies reported a deterministic analysis only. Two studies conducted a value of information analysis. Multiple studies did not adequately discuss model-specific aspects of bias. Most importantly and regularly observed were a high risk of structural assumptions bias, limited simulation horizon bias and wrong model bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for therapy response monitoring with PET/CT was based on cohorts of patients instead of individual patients in the current literature. Therefore, the heterogeneity in therapy response events was commonly not addressed appropriately. Further research should include more advanced and patient-level modelling approaches to accurately represent the complex context of clinical practice and, therefore, to be meaningful to support decision making.

REGISTRATION

This review is registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews funded by the National Institute for Health Research, with CRD42023402581.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and progressive disease that requires lifelong therapeutic intervention, it represents a considerable economic burden on those affected. This study investigated whether tofacitinib is a cost-effective therapeutic alternative to other DMARDs for treating moderate-to-severe RA.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

All economic evaluation studies of tofacitinib compared to other DMARDs were identified. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. The modified economic evaluation bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal were used. The subgroup analysis was done based on the comparator regimen.

RESULTS

Of the selected 11 studies, the number of studies from high-, upper-middle- and lower-middle-income countries was 7, 3, and 1, respectively. The subgroup analysis showed that tofacitinib with an INB of 19,180 US$ [95% CI, -34520 to -3840; p-value = 0.01] was not statistically cost-effective compared with cDMARDs (p-value > 0.0001). Compared to other DMARDs, the estimated pooled INB of tofacitinib was US$ 7260 [95% CI, 3030 to 11,480; p-value < 0.001], but there was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies, and the observed publication bias.

CONCLUSION

While tofacitinib shows potential as a cost-effective treatment, tailored economic evaluations are needed to account for the diverse and evolving contexts of RA treatment.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42023405970.

Cost-effectiveness studies of brexu-cel for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and mantle cell lymphoma: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to explore the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of brexu-cel across different international jurisdictions.

METHODS

A systematic search of articles on Embase, Medline, Econlit, Web of Science, Scopus, gray literature, and a manual search of HTA reports was done until 24 June 2024. Original English articles and reports from different countries assessing the cost-effectiveness of brexu-cel in relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) and mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) were included. This review was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) registry.

RESULTS

Of the 149 records, 22 articles underwent full-text review after the title and abstract screening, five met the inclusion criteria along with seven HTA reports from Australia, Canada, Scotland, and England. The CEA studies were from the US, England, Canada, and Italy, with varying perspectives, mainly adopting a partitioned survival model and lifetime horizons. The model input data from the ZUMA-2 and ZUMA-3 trials were used for brexu-cel, with comparisons from their respective trials or literature.

CONCLUSION

Brexu-cel was found cost-effective in all the CEA studies and an HTA report from Scotland, but the other HTA agencies reported uncertainties around the cost-effectiveness of brexu-cel for R/R ALL and R/R MCL.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework. (Reg doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JZU6Y).

Global Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUD

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS); however, its economic benefits in patients with low to intermediate surgical risk remain controversial and vary by country. We conducted a systematic review to compare the economic benefits of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

We searched 6 databases, including PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical Trials for randomised controlled trials on the economic benefits of TAVR with different valve types and SAVR in symptomatic AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk, from inception to October 2023. We extracted data on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICER converted to 2023 US dollars.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with the overall quality ranging from intermediate to high. Among these, TAVR was found to be cost-effective in 14 studies, whereas in 1 study conducted in a developing country, TAVR was not cost-effective. When adjusted to 2023 USD, the ICER values ranged from $3,669 to $340,038 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR appears to be a cost-effective alternative to SAVR in patients with low- to intermediate-risk AS. In all studies, TAVR was associated with a significant increase in QALYs compared with SAVR. Because it is an expensive procedure, the cost-effectiveness of TAVR depends on each country's ICER and willingness-to-pay threshold.

Health economic evaluation of structured education programs for patients with diabetes: a systematic review

Background

Diabetes structured education programs have been demonstrated to effectively improve glycemic control and self-management behaviors. However, evidence on the health economic evaluation of these programs is limited.

Objectives

To systematically review the health economic evaluation of structured education programs for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

The English databases PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, OVID, COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE, and EBSCO, along with the Chinese databases CNKI, WANFANG, VIP, and SINOMED, were searched from their inception to September 2024. The quality of the literature was assessed using the CHEERS 2022 checklist. A descriptive analysis was performed on the studies included in the review, with all currencies converted to international dollars. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than one times the per capita GDP was considered highly cost-effective, while a ratio between one and three times the per capita GDP was considered cost-effective.

Results

A total of 28 studies from upper-middle-income and high-income countries were included. The average quality score of the included studies was 18.6, indicating a moderate level of reporting quality. Among these, eleven studies demonstrated that diabetes structured education programs were highly cost-effective and twelve were found to be cost-effective. In contrast, three studies were deemed not cost-effective, and two studies provided uncertain results. The ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for short-term, medium-term, and long-term studies were - 520.60 to 65,167.00 dollars, -24,952.22 to 14,465.00 dollars, and -874.00 to 236,991.67 dollars, respectively.

Conclusion

This study confirms the cost-effectiveness of structured education programs for diabetes and highlights their importance for patients with type 2 diabetes who have HbA1c levels exceeding 7% and are receiving non-insulin therapy. Additionally, the potential advantages of incorporating telecommunication technologies into structured diabetes education were emphasized. These findings offer valuable insights and guidance for decision-making in diabetes management and clinical practice, contributing to the optimization of medical resource allocation and the improvement of health status and quality of life for patients.

Cost-effectiveness of falls prevention strategies for older adults: protocol for a living systematic review

INTRODUCTION

One-third of adults aged 65+ fall annually. Injuries from falls can be devastating for individuals and account for 1.5% of annual healthcare spending. With the growing ageing population, falls place increased strain on scarce health resources. Prevention strategies that target individuals at high risk for falls demonstrate the best value for money; however, limited efficiency (ie, cost-effectiveness) information for fall prevention interventions hinders the implementation of effective falls prevention programmes. Living systematic reviews provide a timely up-to-date evidence-based resource to inform clinical guidelines and health policy decisions. This protocol details the methodology for a living systematic review of the efficiency (ie, cost-effectiveness) of fall prevention interventions for older adults in three settings: community-dwelling, aged care and hospitals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol used the reporting guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol. Peer-reviewed economic evaluations of controlled clinical trials or health state models will be included. Reports will be obtained through monthly systematic searches of CENTRAL (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), SCOPUS (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) alongside snowballing and handsearching EconLit and the Tufts Cost Effectivness Analysis Registry. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and risk of bias will be assessed by multiple reviewers. The primary outcomes will be the incremental cost-effectiveness (ie, incremental cost per fall prevented), incremental cost-utility (ie, incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained) or cost-benefit ratio. Additional outcomes will include falls and cost-related measures. All economic outcomes will be reported in a common year and currency. Results will be reported as a narrative synthesis; meta-analysis will be considered based on data quality, suitability and availability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required as primary human data will not be collected. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and a dedicated website.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024532485.

A systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluations of kidney replacement therapies in end-stage kidney disease

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is fatal without treatment by kidney replacement therapies (KRTs). However, access to these treatment modalities can be problematic given the high costs. This systematic review (SR) aims to provide an updated economic evaluation of pairwise comparisons of KRTs and the implications for the proportion of patients with access to the KRT modalities, i.e., kidney transplantation (KT), hemodialysis (HD), and peritoneal dialysis (PD). This SR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020. We searched studies in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) registry, from inception to March 2023. Thirteen studies were included with pairwise comparisons among three KRTs, with varying proportions of patients for each modality. Seven studies were from high-income countries, including five from Europe. Summary findings are presented on a cost-effectiveness plane and incremental net benefit (INB). KT was the most cost-effective intervention across the pairwise comparisons. KT and PD were both more cost-effective alternatives to HD. HD was more costly and less effective than PD in all studies except one. Concurrent efforts to increase both KT and PD represented the best scenario to improve treatment options for ESKD patients.

The cost-effectiveness of preventing, diagnosing, and treating postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is an obstetric emergency. While PPH-related deaths are relatively rare in high-resource settings, PPH continues to be the leading cause of maternal mortality in limited-resource settings. We undertook a systematic review to identify, assess, and synthesise cost-effectiveness evidence on postpartum interventions to prevent, diagnose, or treat PPH.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This systematic review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023438424). We searched Medline, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EconLit, CINAHL, Emcare, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus between 22 June 2023 and 11 July 2024 with no date or language limitations. Full economic evaluations of any postpartum intervention for prevention, detection, or management of PPH were eligible. Study screening, data extraction, and quality assessments (using the CHEC-E tool) were undertaken independently by at least 2 reviewers. We developed narrative syntheses of available evidence for each intervention. From 3,993 citations, 56 studies were included: 33 studies of preventative interventions, 1 study assessed a diagnostic method, 17 studies of treatment interventions, 1 study comparing prevention and treatment, and 4 studies assessed care bundles. Twenty-four studies were conducted in high-income countries, 22 in upper or lower middle-income countries, 3 in low-income countries, and 7 studies involved countries of multiple income levels. Study settings, methods, and findings varied considerably. Interventions with the most consistent findings were the use of tranexamic acid for PPH treatment and using care bundles. In both cases, multiple studies predicted these interventions would either result in better health outcomes and cost savings, or better health outcomes at acceptable costs. Limitations for this review include that no ideal setting was chosen, and therefore, a transferability assessment was not undertaken. In addition, some sources of study uncertainty, such as effectiveness parameters, were interrogated to a greater degree than other sources of uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we extracted, critically appraised, and summarised the cost-effectiveness evidence from 56 studies across 16 different interventions for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of PPH. Both the use of tranexamic acid as part of PPH treatment, and the use of comprehensive PPH bundles for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment have supportive cost-effectiveness evidence across a range of settings. More studies utilizing best practice principles are required to make stronger conclusions on which interventions provide the best value. Several high-priority interventions recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) such as administering additional uterotonics, non-pneumatic anti-shock garment, or uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) for PPH management require robust economic evaluations across high-, middle-, and low-resource settings.

Economic evaluations of pancreatic cancer screening: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The early detection of pancreatic cancer is an important step in reducing mortality by offering patients curative treatment. Screening strategies in risk populations and by means of different detection methods have been economically evaluated. However, a synthesis of screening studies to inform resource allocation towards early detection within the disease area has not been done. Therefore, studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness and costs of screening for pancreatic cancer should be systematically reviewed.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review of economic evaluations reporting the cost-effectiveness or costs of pancreatic cancer screening will be conducted. The electronic databases Medline, Web of Science and EconLit will be searched without geographical or time restrictions. Two independent reviewers will select eligible studies based on predefined criteria. The study quality will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Bias in Economic Evaluation checklist. One reviewer will extract relevant data and a second reviewer will cross-check compliance with the extraction sheet. Key items will include characteristics of screened individuals, the screening strategies used, and costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness as study outputs. Differences of opinion between the reviewers will be solved by consulting a third reviewer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through presentations at conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of the systematic review will inform future economic evaluations of pancreatic screening, which provide guidance for decision-making in healthcare resource prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023475348.

Incremental net monetary benefit of using varenicline for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of varenicline compared with behaviour support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), behaviour support alone and unaided cessation in adult smokers making a first-time attempt to quit.

METHODS

A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.

RESULTS

Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.

CONCLUSION

Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.

Cost Effectiveness of Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an established treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) in patients with advanced motor symptoms with an inadequate response to pharmacotherapies. Despite its effectiveness, the cost effectiveness of DBS remains a subject of debate. This systematic review aims to update and synthesize evidence on the cost effectiveness of DBS for PD.

METHODS

To identify full economic evaluations that compared the cost effectiveness of DBS with other best medical treatments, a comprehensive search was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry databases. The selected papers were systematically reviewed, and the results were summarized. For the quality appraisal, we used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist. The review protocol was a priori registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022345508.

RESULTS

Sixteen identified cost-utility analyses that reported 19 comparisons on the use of DBS for PD were systematically reviewed. The studies were primarily conducted in high-income countries and employed Markov models. The costs considered were direct costs: surgical expenses, calibration, pulse generator replacement, and annual drug expenses. The majority of studies used country-specific thresholds. Fourteen comparisons from 12 studies reported on the cost effectiveness of DBS compared to best medical treatments. Eleven comparisons reported DBS as cost effective based on incremental cost-utility ratio results.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost effectiveness of DBS for PD varies by time horizon, costs considered, threshold utilized, and stage of PD progression. Standardizing approaches and comparing DBS with other treatments are needed for future research on effective PD management.

Economic evaluation of second measles containing vaccine (MCV) dose: a systematic review of available evidence

INTRODUCTION

The global measles incidence has decreased from 145 to 49 cases per 1 million population from 2000 to 2018, but evaluating the economic benefits of a second measles-containing vaccine (MCV2) is crucial. This study reviewed the evidence and quality of economic evaluation studies to guide MCV2 introduction.

METHODS

The systematic review of model-based economic evaluation studies was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search yielded 2231 articles, with 876 duplicates removed and 1355 articles screened, with nine studies included for final analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies reported a positive benefit-cost ratio with one resulting in net savings of $11.6 billion, and two studies estimated a 2-dose MMR vaccination program would save $119.24 to prevent one measles case, and a second dose could prevent 9,200 cases at 18 months, saving $548.19 per case. The most sensitive variables were the discount rate and vaccination administration cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Two MCV doses or a second opportunity with an additional dose of MCV were highly cost-beneficial and resulted in substantial cost savings compared to a single routine vaccine. But further research using high-quality model-based health economic evaluation studies of MCV2 should be made available to decision-makers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42020200669.

Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward.

Methods

A systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP per capita of each study country, the net monetary benefit (NMB) of PM was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Sources of heterogeneity and study biases were examined using random-effects meta-regressions, jackknife sensitivity analysis, and the biases in economic studies checklist.

Results

Among the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152, $8,869, $5,693, p < 0.001), in the form of multigene panel testing (pooled NMBs = $31,026, p < 0.001), which only applied to a few disease areas such as cancer and high-income countries. Incremental effectiveness was an essential value driver for varied genetic tests but not gene therapy.

Conclusion

Precision medicine's value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.

Is Using Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors to Treat Adults with Chronic Heart Failure Cost-Effective? A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to summarise the outcomes of economic evaluations that evaluated sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in combination with standard of care compared to standard of care alone for patients with chronic heart failure.

METHODS

This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL+, Econlit, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from inception to 31 December, 2022, for relevant economic evaluations, which were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) criteria. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness thresholds were qualitatively analysed. Net monetary benefits at different decision thresholds were also computed. Subgroup analyses addressing the heterogeneity of economic outcomes were conducted. All costs were adjusted to 2023 international dollar (US$) values using the CCEMG-EPPI-Centre cost converter.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine economic evaluations that evaluated dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with heart failure were found: 32 for the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and seven for LVEF > 40%. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were cost-effective in all but two economic evaluations for LVEF > 40%. Economic outcomes varied widely, but favoured SGLT2i use in LVEF ≤ 40% over LVEF > 40% and upper-middle income over high-income countries. At a threshold of US$30,000/quality-adjusted life-year, ~ 90% of high to upper-middle income countries would consider SGLT2i cost-effective for heart failure treatment. The generalisability of study findings to low- and low-middle income countries is limited because of insufficient evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Using SGLT2i to treat heart failure is cost-effective, with more certainty in LVEF ≤ 40% compared to LVEF > 40%. Policymakers in jurisdictions where economic evaluations are not available could potentially use this study's findings to make informed decisions about treatment adoption.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023388701).

Economic Evaluations of Imaging Biomarker-Driven Companion Diagnostics for Cancer: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

There is a boom in imaging biomarker-driven companion and complementary diagnostics (CDx) for cancer, which brings opportunity for personalized medicine. Whether adoption of these technologies is likely to be cost-effective is a relevant question, and studies on this topic are emerging. Despite the growing number of economic evaluations, no review of the methods used, quality of reporting, and potential risk of bias has been done. We report a systematic review to identify, summarize, and critique the cost-effectiveness evidence for the use of biomarker-driven and imaging-based CDx to inform cancer treatments.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Systematic literature searches until 30 December 2022 were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and Scopus for economic evaluations of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer. The inclusion and exclusion of studies were determined by pre-specified eligibility criteria informed by the 'Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome' (PICO) framework. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) was used to assess the quality of reporting, and the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) was used to examine the potential risk of bias of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers were included, with eight model-based and four trial-based studies. Implementing biomarker-driven, imaging-based CDx was reported to be cost-effective, cost saving, or dominant (cost saving and more effective) in ten papers. Inconsistent methods were found in the studies, and the quality of reporting was lacking against the CHEERS reporting guideline. Several potential sources of 'risk of bias' were identified. These should be acknowledged and carefully considered by researchers planning future health economic evaluations.

CONCLUSION

Despite favorable results towards the implementation of imaging biomarker-based CDx for cancer, there is room for improvement regarding the quantity and quality of economic evaluations, and that is expected as the awareness of current study limitations increases and more clinical data become available in the future.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BACKGROUND

The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively.

RESULTS

In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.

CONCLUSIONS

While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Transforming global approaches to chronic disease prevention and management across the lifespan: integrating genomics, behavior change, and digital health solutions

Chronic illnesses are a major threat to global population health through the lifespan into older age. Despite world-wide public health goals, there has been a steady increase in chronic and non-communicable diseases (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic disorders) and strong growth in mental health disorders. In 2010, 67% of deaths worldwide were due to chronic diseases and this increased to 74% in 2019, with accelerated growth in the COVID-19 era and its aftermath. Aging and wellbeing across the lifespan are positively impacted by the presence of effective prevention and management of chronic illness that can enhance population health. This paper provides a short overview of the journey to this current situation followed by discussion of how we may better address what the World Health Organization has termed the "tsunami of chronic diseases." In this paper we advocate for the development, validation, and subsequent deployment of integrated: 1. Polygenic and multifactorial risk prediction tools to screen for those at future risk of chronic disease and those with undiagnosed chronic disease. 2. Advanced preventive, behavior change and chronic disease management to maximize population health and wellbeing. 3. Digital health systems to support greater efficiencies in population-scale health prevention and intervention programs. It is argued that each of these actions individually has an emerging evidence base. However, there has been limited research to date concerning the combined population-level health effects of their integration. We outline the conceptual framework within which we are planning and currently conducting studies to investigate the effects of their integration.

Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapies for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) with varying structures and assumptions have been applied in economic evaluations (EEs) to assist decision making for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) therapeutics. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically appraise the EEs of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for HFrEF.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.

Evaluating the Value for Money of Precision Medicine from Early Cycle to Market Access: A Comprehensive Review of Approaches and Challenges

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a comprehensive review of modeling approaches and methodological and policy challenges in the economic evaluation (EE) of precision medicine (PM) across clinical stages.

METHODS

First, a systematic review was performed to assess the approaches of EEs in the past 10 years. Next, a targeted review of methodological articles was conducted for methodological and policy challenges in performing EEs of PM. All findings were synthesized into a structured framework that focused on patient population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability and Modeling aspects, named the "PICOTEAM" framework. Finally, a stakeholder consultation was conducted to understand the major determinants of decision making in PM investment.

RESULTS

In 39 methodological articles, we identified major challenges to the EE of PM. These challenges include that PM applications involve complex and evolving clinical decision space, that clinical evidence is sparse because of small subgroups and complex pathways in PM settings, a one-time PM application may have lifetime or intergenerational impacts but long-term evidence is often unavailable, and that equity and ethics concerns are exceptional. In 275 EEs of PM, current approaches did not sufficiently capture the value of PM compared with targeted therapies, nor did they differentiate Early EEs from Conventional EEs. Finally, policy makers perceived the budget impact, cost savings, and cost-effectiveness of PM as the most important determinants in decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to modify existing guidelines or develop a new reference case that fits into the new healthcare paradigm of PM to guide decision making in research and development and market access.

Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence-based healthcare interventions: a systematic literature review of best practices in their conduct and reporting

Objectives: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) help healthcare decision makers understand the value of new technologies. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in healthcare interventions. We sought to review the conduct and reporting of published HEEs for AI-based health interventions. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review with a 15-month search window (April 2021 to June 2022) on 17th June 2022 to identify HEEs of AI health interventions and update a previous review. Records were identified from 3 databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central). Two reviewers screened papers against predefined study selection criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using prespecified data extraction tables. Included studies were quality assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively. Results: A total of 21 studies were included. The most common type of AI intervention was automated image analysis (9/21, 43%) mainly used for screening or diagnosis in general medicine and oncology. Nearly all were cost-utility (10/21, 48%) or cost-effectiveness analyses (8/21, 38%) that took a healthcare system or payer perspective. Decision-analytic models were used in 16/21 (76%) studies, mostly Markov models and decision trees. Three (3/16, 19%) used a short-term decision tree followed by a longer-term Markov component. Thirteen studies (13/21, 62%) reported the AI intervention to be cost effective or dominant. Limitations tended to result from the input data, authorship conflicts of interest, and a lack of transparent reporting, especially regarding the AI nature of the intervention. Conclusion: Published HEEs of AI-based health interventions are rapidly increasing in number. Despite the potentially innovative nature of AI, most have used traditional methods like Markov models or decision trees. Most attempted to assess the impact on quality of life to present the cost per QALY gained. However, studies have not been comprehensively reported. Specific reporting standards for the economic evaluation of AI interventions would help improve transparency and promote their usefulness for decision making. This is fundamental for reimbursement decisions, which in turn will generate the necessary data to develop flexible models better suited to capturing the potentially dynamic nature of AI interventions.

Economic Evaluation Associated With Clinical-Grade Mobile App-Based Digital Therapeutic Interventions: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Digital therapeutics (DTx), a class of software-based clinical interventions, are promising new technologies that can potentially prevent, manage, or treat a spectrum of medical disorders and diseases as well as deliver unprecedented portability for patients and scalability for health care providers. Their adoption and implementation were accelerated by the need for remote care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and awareness about their utility has rapidly grown among providers, payers, and regulators. Despite this, relatively little is known about the capacity of DTx to provide economic value in care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review and summarize the published evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx and explore the factors affecting such evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Major electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 28, 2022. Two independent reviewers evaluated the eligibility of all the retrieved articles for inclusion in the review. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed for each included study.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included in this review. Of the 18 studies, 7 (39%) were nonrandomized study-based economic evaluations, 6 (33%) were model-based evaluations, and 5 (28%) were randomized clinical trial-based evaluations. The DTx intervention subject to assessment was found to be cost-effective in 12 (67%) studies, cost saving in 5 (28%) studies, and cost-effective in 1 (6%) study in only 1 of the 3 countries where it was being deployed in the final study. Qualitative deficiencies in methodology and substantial potential for bias, including risks of performance bias and selection bias in participant recruitment, were identified in several included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports the thesis that DTx interventions offer potential economic benefits. However, DTx economic analyses conducted to date exhibit important methodological shortcomings that must be addressed in future evaluations to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the widespread adoption of DTx interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022358616; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022358616.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the cost-utility evidence of TNF-a-i treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to estimate the pooled incremental net benefit (INBp).

METHODS

We selected economic evaluation studies reporting the cost-utility of TNF-a-i compared to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) after a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. The results were reported as pooled INB in purchasing power parity-adjusted US dollars, along with 95% confidence intervals. We used GRADE quality assessment to present summaries of evidence and random-effects meta-analysis to synthesize cost-utility of TNF-a-i.

RESULTS

We included 86 studies for systematic review, of which 27 for meta-analysis. TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,129(-6,789 to -1,469)] compared to other DMARDs but with high heterogeneity. There was no evidence of publication bias (p = 0.447). On separate analysis, TNF-a-i is not cost-effective [$ -4,805(-7,882 to -1,728)] compared to conventional synthetic DMARDs for RA treatment. GRADE assessment indicated very low confidence in pooled cost-utility results and likely presence of risk of bias on the overall ECOBIAS checklist in studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the available evidence during the study period, TNF-a-i is not a cost-effective option for treating RA compared to other DMARDs. However, high heterogeneity and low confidence in GRADE quality assessment preclude the results from being generalizable.

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Cost-Utility of Ranolazine for Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Ranolazine is used to treat stable angina pectoris, the most common symptom of ischemic heart disease. Appropriate management of chronic stable angina pectoris is essential from both a clinical and an economic view point.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included cost-utility analyses, which compared ranolazine with other standard treatments for treating stable angina pectoris. The search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. A random-effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird method was used to pool the incremental net benefit reported in purchasing power parity adjusted US dollars. The modified economic evaluation checklist was used to assess the risk of bias.

FINDINGS

The pooled results from 7 selected studies with a time horizon of 1 year show that add-on ranolazine was significantly cost-effective compared with standard treatment, with a pooled incremental net benefit of US$1335 (95% CI, 500 to 2169) but with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 79.46%). On subgroup analysis, ranolazine was cost-effective from the payers' perspective (US$1975; 95% CI, 1042 to 2908; I² = 69.23) but not from a societal perspective (US$297; 95% CI, -241 to 715; I² = 0%)]. There was limited evidence from lower economies.

IMPLICATIONS

Pooled evidence suggests that add-on ranolazine therapy is cost-effective for chronic stable angina pectoris up to a 1-year time horizon. There is a lacuna of evidence from low- and middle-income countries and on long-term cost-effectiveness. The current evidence synthesis may provide a macroeconomic point of view for policy makers regarding the direction of ranolazine's cost-effectiveness for evidence-informed policy-making. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332454.

Pneumococcal Vaccination in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Studies

OBJECTIVES

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) have significantly reduced disease burden caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the incremental net benefit (INB) of the 13-valent PCV (PCV13) and 10-valent PCV (PCV10) in children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published before May 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of PCV13 or PCV10 compared with no vaccination or with each other in children. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies stratified by country income level, perspective, and consideration of herd effects, using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Seventy studies were included. When herd effects were considered, PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 from the payer perspective in both high-income countries (HICs) (INB, $103.94; 95% confidence interval, $75.28-$132.60) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (INB, $53.49; 95% confidence interval, $30.42-$76.55) with statistical significance. These findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. PCV13 was cost-effective compared with no vaccination across perspectives and consideration of herd effects in both HICs and LMICs, whereas findings were less consistent for PCV10.

CONCLUSION

PCVs were generally cost-effective compared with no vaccination in HICs and LMICs. Our study found that PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 when herd effects were considered from the payer perspective in both HICs and LMICs. The results are sensitive to the consideration of herd effects.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive and costly treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to systematically review the published literature focusing on economic evaluation of TAVI compared with other alternative treatments in AS populations.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from inception until May 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Embase databases. The qualities of included studies were evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) criteria. Data of costs, outcomes, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness to pay were extracted. To compare results, ICERs were converted to the 2020 United States dollar (USD) rate.

RESULTS

Of the 29 included cost-effectiveness studies, TAVI was cost-effective in all studies in the low-risk group (3/3), 77% of studies (7/9) in the intermediate-risk group, half of the studies (6/12) in the high-risk group, and 83% of studies (10/12) in the inoperable group. When adjusted to USD 2020, ICERs ranged from USD 2741 to 1027,674 USD per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is potentially a cost-effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with operable AS with low, intermediate or high risk compared with medical management (MM) for patients with inoperable AS. TAVI was associated with a significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years in almost all studies compared to either SAVR or MM. TAVI is a costly procedure; therefore, justifying its cost-effectiveness depends on the acceptable threshold in each country.

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

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I²=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I²=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I²=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations of Treatment Alternatives in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations are widely used to predict the economic impact of new treatment alternatives. Comprehensive economic reviews in the field of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are warranted to supplement the existing analyses focused on specific therapeutic areas.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted based on literature searches in Medline and EMBASE to summarize the published health economics models related to all types of CLL therapies. Narrative synthesis of relevant studies was performed focusing on compared treatments, patient populations, modelling approaches and key findings.

RESULTS

We included 29 studies, the majority of which were published between 2016 and 2018, when data from large clinical trials in CLL became available. Treatment regimens were compared in 25 cases, while the remaining four studies considered treatment strategies with more complex patient pathways. Based on the review results, Markov modelling with a simple structure of three health states (progression-free, progressed, death) can be considered as the traditional basis to simulate cost effectiveness. However, more recent studies added further complexity, including additional health states for different therapies (e.g. best supportive care or stem cell transplantation), for progression-free state (e.g. by differentiating between with or without treatment), or for response status (i.e. partial response and complete response).

CONCLUSIONS

As personalized medicine is increasingly gaining recognition, we expect that future economic evaluations will also incorporate new solutions, which are necessary to capture a larger number of genetic and molecular markers and more complex patient pathways with individual patient-level allocation of treatment options and thus economic assessments.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Adjunctive Lifestyle Interventions for the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of papers synthesizing the cost-effectiveness (CE) of lifestyle interventions to support cancer patients, and the synthesis papers available have used analytic methods that do not permit easy comparison between studies. We therefore evaluated the CE of adjunctive lifestyle interventions compared with usual care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted from database inception until June 2021. Eligible studies were economic evaluations from randomised controlled trials or modelled economic evaluations that recruited subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer and were allocated to a lifestyle intervention as an adjunct or supportive treatment, or usual care. Studies were excluded if there was no cost-effectiveness analysis or if costs were identified but not related back to measures of effectiveness. CE of the included interventions was recalculated, adjusting for key differences (with respect to absolute resource costs and timing) between the broad range of study settings and a common 'target' setting. All CE data were converted into incremental net monetary benefit using a common cost-effectiveness threshold to facilitate comparison. The quality of the studies was evaluated for risk of bias using the ECOBIAS check list.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in our review. Seven studies investigated the benefits of physical exercise in combination with cancer treatment and two studies investigated the combination of exercise and psychosocial counselling alongside cancer treatment. Six studies with an exercise intervention reported larger quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains compared with usual care and when cost per QALY gained was considered, three of the interventions were cost effective. One of the two interventions combining exercise with psychosocial counselling was cost effective. All studies were considered of good quality but all had some limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence to support the cost effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in patients with cancer is mixed with four of the nine interventions found to be cost effective and two remaining cost effective when uncertainty was taken into account. Sensitivity analysis showed the influence of the CE threshold on the results, highlighting the importance of selecting a CE threshold that is appropriate to the setting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020185376.

Cost Effectiveness of Rituximab Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Utility Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Depletion of B cells is shown to be clinically effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Although B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab is indicated for RA patients who have failed to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), primary cost-effectiveness evidence is inconsistent. We aimed to provide synthesised cost-effectiveness evidence of rituximab in the treatment of RA compared to other DMARDs, since the published cost-effectiveness evidence is mixed.

METHODS

We identified economic evaluation studies reporting cost-utility of rituximab compared to other DMARDs by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled incremental net benefit (INB) in (purchasing power parity) adjusted US$ with 95% confidence intervals. We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument for quality appraisal. The study protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021222541.

RESULTS

Of the selected 18 studies, the majority were from high-income countries (n = 14) followed by upper middle-income countries (n = 3) and lower middle-income countries (n = 1), with minimal risk of bias. Rituximab is significantly cost effective with a pooled INB (95% CI) of $8767 (720 to 16,814). On subgroup analysis, rituximab is significantly cost effective from a health system perspective [$12,832 (3392 to 22,272)], for studies using 3.5% discount rate [$15,468 (5973 to 24,963)] and a for a time horizon of less than 5 years [$8496 (1547 to 15,445)]. In a separate analysis, rituximab as third-line therapy (for conventional synthetic DMARDs followed by any other biologic DMARD failed patients) was not cost effective compared to DMARDs [$5314 (-2278 to 12,905)]. Further, the GRADE assessment indicated very-low confidence in the pooled results.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab is cost effective compared to other DMARDs but not if used as third-line therapy after failure of biologics. There is a need to generate context-specific evidence for the lower income settings.

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

BACKGROUND

Understanding what an economic evaluation is, how to interpret it, and what it means for making choices in a health delivery context is necessary to contribute to decisions about healthcare resource allocation. The aim of this paper to demystify the working parts of a health economic evaluation, and explain to clinicians and clinical researchers how to read and interpret cost-effectiveness research.

MAIN BODY

This primer distils key content and constructs of economic evaluation studies, and explains health economic evaluation in plain language. We use the PICOT (participant, intervention, comparison, outcome, timeframe) clinical trial framework familiar to clinicians, clinical decision-makers, and clinical researchers, who may be unfamiliar with economics, as an aide to reading and interpreting cost-effectiveness research. We provide examples, primarily of physiotherapy interventions for osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluation studies are essential to improve decisions about allocating resources, whether those resources be your time, the capacity of your service, or the available funding across the entire healthcare system. The PICOT framework can be used to understand and interpret cost-effectiveness research.

Cost-effectiveness of janus kinase inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

Introduction: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK-i), a class of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tDMARDs), are suggested as second or third-line therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Synthesized cost-effective evidence would aid in informed decision-making given the similar clinical effectiveness of JAKi, but incongruent cost-effectiveness reports. Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Medical Centers' cost-effective analysis registry. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model and the heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane-Q test and I2 statistic. Modified economic evaluation bias checklist was used to assess the quality of selected studies. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's test. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was performed to assess the certainty of outcomes presented. Results: We included seventeen relevant studies for systematic review, of which fifteen were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed that JAK-i is cost-effective compared to csDMARDS/bDMARDs with a pooled INB (INBp) of $19,886 (95% CI, 1,635 to 38,137) but with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99.14). As a second-line treatment for csDMARD failed RA, JAK-i is cost-effective than csDMARD/bDMARD with a pooled INB of $23,144 (74.1-46,214) and high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.67). But on a separate analysis JAK-i as second-line treatment is not cost-effective than TNF-a-i (INBp = $25,813, -5,714 to 57,340). However, leave-one-out analysis found that omitting a single outlier makes JAK-i cost-effective. Further, JAK-i is not cost-effective as a third-line treatment for csDMARD-TNF-a-I failed RA, compared to csDMARDs/bDMARDs with INBp $26,157 (-7,284 to 59,598). Conclusion: Meta-analysis suggests that JAK-i is cost-effective when used after csDMARD failure but not cost-effective when used after csDMARD-TNF-a-i failure with low certainty of evidence. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222541, identifier CRD42021222541.

Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review

Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504.

A systematic review of cost-utility analyses of screening methods in latent tuberculosis infection in high-risk populations

Background

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that testing and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) should be undertaken in high-risk groups using either interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) or a tuberculin skin test (TST). As IGRAs are more expensive than TST, an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs can guide decision makers on the most appropriate choice of test for different high-risk populations. This current review aimed to provide the most up to date evidence on the cost-effectiveness evidence on LTBI testing in high-risk groups—specifically evidence reporting the costs per QALY of different testing strategies.

Methods

A comprehensive search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS-EED was undertaken from 2011 up to March 2021. Studies were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The study quality was assessed using the Bias in Economic Evaluation Checklist (ECOBIAS). A narrative synthesis of the included studies was undertaken.

Results

Thirty-two studies reported in thirty-three documents were included in this review. Quality of included studies was generally high, although there was a weakness across all studies referencing sources correctly and/or justifying choices of parameter values chosen or assumptions where parameter values were not available. Inclusions of IGRAs in testing strategies was consistently found across studies to be cost-effective but this result was sensitive to underlying LTBI prevalence rates.

Conclusion

While some concerns remain about uncertainty in parameter values used across included studies, the evidence base since 2010 has grown with modelling approaches addressing the weakness pointed out in previous reviews but still reaching the same conclusion that IGRAs are likely to be cost-effective in high-income countries for high-risk populations. Evidence is also required on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies in low to middle income countries and countries with high TB burden.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-02149-x.

Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

We searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I²=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I²=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I²=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I²=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I²=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.

PROSPERO REGISTERATION NUMBER

CRD 42019146610.

Incremental net monetary benefit of direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee or hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacements (TKR or THR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published before June 2021. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year of DOACs compared to low molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) or other anticoagulant agents for the prevention of VTE after TKR or THR. Risk of bias was also assessed using the biases in economic studies (ECOBIAS) checklist. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2020 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 49 comparisons (TKR = 25 and THR = 24) from 16 studies was included. In HICs, DOACs were cost-effective compared to LMWHs from the health care system/payer perspective for the prevention of VTE after both TKR and THR with corresponding INBs (95 % CI; I²) of $231.91 ($178.71, $285.11; 0 %) and $254.99 ($159.20, $350.77; 27.79 %), respectively. In LMICs, DOACs were not cost-effective compared to LMWHs for both TKR and THR with the INBs of $94.13 (-$40.21, $228.47; 97.04 %) and $80.55 (-$157.37, $318.47; 99.78 %), respectively. No evidence of small-study effects was identified in any analyses. The cost-effectiveness of using DOACs for TKR and THR in HICs was robust across a series of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs were cost-effective as compared to LMWHs for VTE prophylaxis following TKR and THR surgeries in HICs. Further studies from LMICs are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin lipid-lowering therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

In addition to statin therapy, Ezetimibe, a non-statin lipid-modifying agent, is increasingly used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Literature suggests the clinical effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin (EPS) therapy; however, primary evidence on its economic effectiveness is inconsistent. Hence, we pooled incremental net benefit to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of EPS therapy. We identified economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of EPS therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled Incremental Net Benefit (INB) in the US $ with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and GRADE quality assessment for quality appraisal. The pooled INB from twenty-one eligible studies showed that EPS therapy was significantly cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo. The pooled INB (95% CI) was $4,274 (621 to 7,927), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I² = 84.21). On subgroup analysis EPS therapy is significantly cost-effective in high-income countries [$4,356 (621 to 8,092)], for primary prevention [$4,814 (2,523 to 7,106)], and for payers’ perspective [$3,255 (571 to 5,939)], and from lifetime horizon [$4,571 (746 to 8,395)]. EPS therapy is cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo in high-income countries and for primary prevention. However, there is a dearth of evidence from lower-middle-income countries and the societal perspective.

Economic evaluation of seasonal influenza vaccination in elderly and health workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A number of cost-effectiveness analysis of influenza vaccination have been conducted to estimate value of influenza vaccines in elderly and health workers (HWs). This study aims to summarize cost-effectiveness evidence by pooling the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of influenza vaccination.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in electronic databases from their inceptions to February 2022. Cost-effectiveness studies reporting quality-adjusted life year (QALY), or life year (LY) of influenza vaccination were included. Stratified meta-analyses by population, perspective, country income-level, and herd-effect were performed to pool INMB across studies. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021246746).

FINDINGS

A total of 21 studies were included. Eighteen studies were conducted in elderly, two studies were conducted in HWs, and one study was conducted in both elderly and HWs. According to pre-specified analyses, studies for elderly in high-income economies (countries) (HIEs) and upper-middle income economies (UMIEs) without herd effect could be pooled. For HIEs under a societal perspective, the perspective which identify all relevant costs occurred in the society including direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost and indirect cost, pooled INMB was $217·38 (206·23, 228·53, I² =28.2%), while that for healthcare provider/payer perspective was $0·20 (-11,908·67, 11,909·07, I² = 0.0%). For societal perspective in UMIEs, pooled INMB was $28·39 (-190·65, 133·87, I² = 92.8%). The findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses for HIEs. Studies in HWs indicated that influenza vaccination was cost-effective compared to no vaccination or current practice.

INTERPRETATION

Influenza vaccination might be cost-effective for HWs and elderly in HIEs under a societal perspective with relatively small variations among included studies, while there remains limited evidence for healthcare provider/payer perspective or other level of incomes. Further evidence is warranted.

FUNDING

This study was funded by a grant of Immunization, Vaccine and Biologicals department of the World Health Organization. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the US CDC which provided financial support to the development and publication of this report. Grant number US CDC, WHO IVR (U50CK000431).

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Precision medicine (PM) involves gene testing to identify disease risk, enable early diagnosis or guide therapeutic choice, and targeted gene therapy. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cost-effectiveness profile of PM stratified by intervention type, identify sources of heterogeneity in the value-for-money of PM.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit and CRD databases for studies published in English language or with translation in English between 1 January 2011 and 8 July 2021 on the topic of cost-effectiveness analysis of PM interventions. The focus will be on studies that reported health and economic outcomes. Study quality will be assessed using the Biases in Economic Studies checklist. The incremental net benefit of PM screening, diagnostic, treatment-targeting and therapeutic interventions over conventional strategies will be respectively pooled across studies using a random-effect model if heterogeneity is present, otherwise a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on disease area, WHO region and World Bank country-income level. Additionally, we will identify the potential sources of heterogeneity with random-effect meta-regressions. Finally, biases will be detected using jackknife sensitivity analysis, funnel plot assessment and Egger's tests.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

For this type of study ethics approval or formal consent is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021272956.

Incremental net benefit of cholecystectomy compared with alternative treatments in people with gallstones or cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cost–utility studies

Introduction

Cholecystectomy is a standard treatment in the management of symptomatic gallstone disease. Current literature has contradicting views on the cost-effectiveness of different cholecystectomy treatments. We have conducted a systematic reappraisal of literature concerning the cost-effectiveness of cholecystectomy in management of gallstone disease.

Methods

We systematically searched for economic evaluation studies from PubMed, Embase and Scopus for eligible studies from inception up to July 2020. We pooled the incremental net benefit (INB) with a 95% CI using a random-effects model. We assessed the heterogeneity using the Cochrane-Q test, I2 statistic. We have used the modified economic evaluation bias (ECOBIAS) checklist for quality assessment of the selected studies. We assessed the possibility of publication bias using a funnel plot and Egger’s test.

Results

We have selected 28 studies for systematic review from a search that retrieved 8710 studies. Among them, seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis, all from high-income countries (HIC). Studies mainly reported comparisons between surgical treatments, but non-surgical gallstone disease management studies were limited. The early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) was significantly more cost-effective compared with the delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) with an INB of US$1221 (US$187 to US$2255) but with high heterogeneity (I2=73.32%). The subgroup and sensitivity analysis also supported that ELC is the most cost-effective option for managing gallstone disease or cholecystitis.

Conclusion

ELC is more cost-effective than DLC in the treatment of gallstone disease or cholecystitis in HICs. There was insufficient literature on comparison with other treatment options, such as conservative management and limited evidence from other economies.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020194052.

Methodological Approaches to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Saudi Arabia: What Can We Learn? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The recent establishment of the health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has resulted in increased interest in economic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical approaches used in published economic evaluations and the limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies that could affect the ability to perform economic evaluations in the KSA.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations performed for the KSA over the past 10 years. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed. A CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. Reported limitations were classified into domains including the definition of perspectives, identification of comparators, estimation of costs and resources, and use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold.

RESULTS

Twelve evaluations were identified; most involved cost-effectiveness analysis (92%). Missing and unclear data were found within the CHEERS criteria. Regardless of the perspective used, most described the perspective as an "institutional" perspective (70%) and almost half were reclassified by the current reviewer (42%). Most did not clearly state the comparator (83%), and published model comparators were commonly used (50%). Resource estimation was mostly performed by the authors of the respective studies (67%), and costs were mostly obtained from hospital institutional data (75%). The lack of an established threshold for the country-specific willingness to pay was observed in 50% of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations from the KSA are limited. Capacity building and country-specific HTA guidelines could improve the quality of evaluations to better inform decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Economic analysis of health technology should follow standard guidelines. Unfortunately, these guides are often underutilized, and our findings identify considerable missing, not clearly stated, or incomplete data within the analyses, which can weaken the impact of the recommendations.The limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies emphasize the suboptimal quality of the reporting. A lack of data was frequently identified and resulted in using "institutional" practice as a major source of data input for the analyses.In light of the call for the establishment of an HTA entity in the KSA, framing a standard analytic approach when conducting economic evaluations will support HTA in informing resource allocation decisions. We hope that our findings highlight the need for country-specific guidance to improve practice and enhance future research.