A cost-effectiveness analysis of India's 2008 prohibition of smoking in public places in Gujarat

A Systematic Review of Economic Evidence of Cardiovascular Interventions in India

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) continue to be the primary cause of mortality globally and invariably in India as well. The rapid upsurge in the prevalence of CVDs in India has created a pressing need to promote contemporary, sustainable, and cost-effective interventions to tackle the CVD burden. This systematic review integrates the research-based evidence of the cost-effectiveness of various interventions that can be adapted to control CVDs in India.

METHODS

Databases, namely, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar, were searched for data on the economic evaluation of interventions targeting CVD based on the Indian population for a period of 30 years (1991-2021). Two reviewers assessed the articles for eligibility, and data were extracted from the shortlisted articles as per a predefined template, including the quantification of methodological aspects.

RESULTS

In total, 1249 studies were examined, out of which 23 completely met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. A total of 16 studies were based solely on the Indian population, while the rest (7) included South Asia/Asia for the intervention, of which India was a participant nation. Most of the economic evaluations targeted treatment-based or pharmacological interventions (14) for CVDs. The evaluations were based on Decision-based models (10), Randomized controlled Trials (RCTs) (9), and Observational studies (4). The cost-effectiveness ratio for the included studies exhibited a diverse range due to variations in methodological approaches, such as differences in study settings, populations, and inconsistencies in study design. The mean ICER (Incremental Cost-effectiveness ratio) for primordial and primary preventions was found to be 3073.8 (US $2022) and 17489.9 (US $2022), respectively. Moreover, the combined mean value for secondary and tertiary prevention was 2029.6 (US$2022).

CONCLUSION

The economic evidence of public health interventions are expanding, but their focus is restricted towards pharmacological interventions. There is an urgency to emphasize primordial and primary prevention for better outcomes in health economics decision-making. Technology- based avenues for intervention need more exploration in order to cater to a large population like India.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tobacco Control Strategies in Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

In Indonesia, tobacco smoking is a significant public health problem that continues to grow, with a prevalence among the highest worldwide. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of government-funded varenicline, smoking bans in public places, and an additional 10% tobacco tax in Indonesia.

METHODS

Markov modeling of Indonesians aged 15 to 84 years was undertaken, with simulated follow-up until age 85 years. Data on demographics, smoking prevalence, and mortality were drawn from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Data regarding the efficacy and costs of the 3 interventions were gathered from published sources. Costs and benefits accrued beyond one year were discounted at 3% per annum. The year value of costing data was 2020.

RESULTS

Government-funded varenicline, smoking bans in public places, and an additional 10% tobacco tax were predicted to save 5.5 million, 1.6 million, and 1.7 million years of life, respectively (all discounted). In terms of quality-adjusted life-years, 3 tobacco interventions were predicted to gain 11.9 million, 3.47 million, and 3.78 million in quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. The savings in smoking-related healthcare costs amounted to US $313.8 billion, US $97.5 billion, and US $106 billion, respectively. Hence, from the perspective of the healthcare system, all 3 interventions were cost saving (dominant).

CONCLUSIONS

In Indonesia, tobacco control measures are likely to be highly cost-effective and even cost saving from the healthcare system's perspective. These cost savings can be balanced against economic losses that would result from the impact on the sizable Indonesian tobacco industry.

Economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tobacco consumption and its associated adverse outcomes remain major public health issues, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This systematic review aimed to identify and critically assess full economic evaluations for tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO and the grey literature, were searched using terms such as 'tobacco', 'economic evaluation' and 'smoking' from 1994 to 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria and the Philips checklist. Studies were included which were full economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions in low- and middle-income settings. Reviews, commentaries, conference proceedings and abstracts were excluded. Study selection and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis was conducted to synthesize the findings of the studies.

RESULTS

This review identified 20 studies for inclusion. The studies evaluated a wide range of interventions, including tax increase, nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patch/gum) and financial incentives. Overall, 12 interventions were reported to be cost-effective, especially tax increases for tobacco consumption and cessation counselling. There were considerable limitations regarding data sources (e.g. using cost data from other countries or assumptions due to the lack of local data) and the model structure; sensitivity analyses were inadequately described in many studies; and there were issues around the transferability of results to other settings. Additionally, the affordability of the interventions was only discussed in two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few high-quality studies of the cost-effectiveness of tobacco use control interventions in low- and middle-income countries. The methodological limitations of the existing literatures could affect the generalizability of the findings.

Informing policy makers on the efficiency of population level tobacco control interventions in Asia: A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions support decisions regarding resource allocation in public health policy. Our systematic review was aimed at identifying potential bias in decision models used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of population-based tobacco control interventions in Asia.

METHODS

We included studies conducted in Asian countries and using a modelling technique to evaluate the economic impacts of one or more population-based tobacco interventions in line with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). We assessed the structure, input parameters, and risk of bias for each model, and performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies.

RESULTS

Nine model-based economic evaluation studies of population-based tobacco interventions were identified. About 60% of the criteria for reporting quality were met in all studies, indicating that reporting generally lacked transparency. The studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of the scope, types, and structures of their models and the quality of input parameters. One-third of the models applied in the studies scored a high risk of bias, with problems mostly falling into the following categories: model type, time horizons, and smoking transition probabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

More data are needed to provide high-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of tobacco control policies in Asia. Strong evidence at the country level hinges on the availability of accurate estimates of the effects of the interventions, the relative risks of smoking, and the price elasticity of the demand for tobacco. Simple transfers of models built in Western populations do not suffice.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD 42019141679.

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of deaths globally, with greatest premature mortality in the low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Many of these countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, have significant budget constraints. The need for current evidence on which interventions offer good value for money to stem this CVD epidemic motivates this study.

Methods

In this systematic review, we included studies reporting full economic evaluations of individual and population-based interventions (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic), for primary and secondary prevention of CVD among adults in LMIC. Several medical (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science) and economic (EconLit, NHS EED) databases and grey literature were searched. Screening of studies and data extraction was done independently by two reviewers. Drummond’s checklist and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality rating scale were used in the quality appraisal for all studies used to inform this evidence synthesis.

Results

From a pool of 4059 records, 94 full texts were read and 50 studies, which met our inclusion criteria, were retained for our narrative synthesis. Most of the studies were from middle-income countries and predominantly of high quality. The majority were modelled evaluations, and there was significant heterogeneity in methods. Primary prevention studies dominated secondary prevention. Most of the economic evaluations were performed for pharmacological interventions focusing on blood pressure, cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet aggregants. The greatest majority were cost-effective. Compared to individual-based interventions, population-based interventions were few and mostly targeted reduction in sodium intake and tobacco control strategies. These were very cost-effective with many being cost-saving.

Conclusions

This evidence synthesis provides a contemporary update on interventions that offer good value for money in LMICs. Population-based interventions especially those targeting reduction in salt intake and tobacco control are very cost-effective in LMICs with potential to generate economic gains that can be reinvested to improve health and/or other sectors. While this evidence is relevant for policy across these regions, decision makers should additionally take into account other multi-sectoral perspectives, including considerations in budget impact, fairness, affordability and implementation while setting priorities for resource allocation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0108-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic Studies on Non-Communicable Diseases and Injuries in India: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The burden from non-communicable diseases and injuries (NCDI) in India is increasing rapidly. With low public sector investment in the health sector generally, and a high financial burden on households for treatment, it is important that economic evidence is used to set priorities in the context of NCDI.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to understand the extent to which economic analysis has been used in India to (1) analyze the impact of NCDI and (2) evaluate prevention and treatment interventions. Specifically, this analysis focused on the type of economic analysis used, disease categories, funding patterns, authorship, and author characteristics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review based on economic keywords to identify studies on NCDI in India published in English between January 2006 and November 2016. In all, 96 studies were included in the review. The analysis used descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

A majority of the studies were economic impact studies, followed by economic evaluation studies, especially cost-effectiveness analysis. In the costing/partial economic evaluation category, most were cost-description and cost-analysis studies. Under the economic impact/economic burden category, most studies investigated out-of-pocket spending. The studies were mostly on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neoplasms. Slightly over half of the studies were funded, with funding coming mainly from outside of India. Half of the studies were led by domestic authors. In most of the studies, the lead author was a clinician or a public health professional; however, most of the economist-led studies were by authors from outside India.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate the lack of engagement of economists generally and health economists in particular in research on NCDI in India. Demand from health policy makers for evidence-based decision making appears to be lacking, which in turn solidifies the divergence between economics and health policy, and highlights the need to prioritize scarce resources based on evidence regarding what works. Capacity building in health economics needs focus, and the government's support in this is recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to control cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus in South Asia: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

More than 80% of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) burden now lies in low and middle-income countries. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify and implement the most cost-effective interventions, particularly in the resource-constraint South Asian settings. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of individual-level, group-level and population-level interventions to control CVD and DM in South Asia.

METHODS

We searched 14 electronic databases up to August 2016. The search strategy consisted of terms related to 'economic evaluation', 'CVD', 'DM' and 'South Asia'. Per protocol two reviewers assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of studies using standard checklists, and extracted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of interventions.

RESULTS

Of the 2949 identified studies, 42 met full inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal of studies revealed 15 excellent, 18 good and 9 poor quality studies. Most studies were from India (n=37), followed by Bangladesh (n=3), Pakistan (n=2) and Bhutan (n=1). The economic evaluations were based on observational studies (n=9), randomised trials (n=12) and decision models (n=21). Together, these studies evaluated 301 policy or clinical interventions or combination of both. We found a large number of interventions were cost-effective aimed at primordial prevention (tobacco taxation, salt reduction legislation, food labelling and food advertising regulation), and primary and secondary prevention (multidrug therapy for CVD in high-risk group, lifestyle modification and metformin treatment for diabetes prevention, and screening for diabetes complications every 2-5 years). Significant heterogeneity in analytical framework and outcome measures used in these studies restricted meta-analysis and direct ranking of the interventions by their degree of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness evidence for CVD and DM interventions in South Asia is growing, but most evidence is from India and limited to decision modelled outcomes. There is an urgent need for formal health technology assessment and policy evaluations in South Asia using local research data.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42013006479.

Mathematical Modeling in Tobacco Control Research: Initial Results From a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed interest in using mathematical models to evaluate potential tobacco policies. The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize data from tobacco control studies that employ mathematical models.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 to identify published studies that used a mathematical model to project a tobacco-related outcome and developed a data extraction form based on the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices. We developed an organizational framework to categorize these studies and identify models employed across multiple papers. We synthesized results qualitatively, providing a descriptive synthesis of included studies.

RESULTS

The 263 studies in this review were heterogeneous with regard to their methodologies and aims. We used the organizational framework to categorize each study according to its objective and map the objective to a model outcome. We identified two types of study objectives (trend and policy/intervention) and three types of model outcomes (change in tobacco use behavior, change in tobacco-related morbidity or mortality, and economic impact). Eighteen models were used across 118 studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper extends conventional systematic review methods to characterize a body of literature on mathematical modeling in tobacco control. The findings of this synthesis can inform the development of new models and the improvement of existing models, strengthening the ability of researchers to accurately project future tobacco-related trends and evaluate potential tobacco control policies and interventions. These findings can also help decision-makers to identify and become oriented with models relevant to their work.

A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Economic evaluations are one of the important tools in policy making for rational allocation of resources. Given the very low public investment in the health sector in India, it is critical that resources are used wisely on interventions proven to yield best results. Hence, we undertook this study to assess the extent and quality of evidence for economic evaluation of health-care interventions and programmes in India.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to search for published full economic evaluations pertaining to India and addressing a health-related intervention or programme. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ScienceDirect, and York CRD database and websites of important research agencies were identified to search for economic evaluations published from January 1980 to the middle of November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the studies based on Drummond and modelling checklist.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 5013 articles enlisted after literature search, a total of 104 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The majority of these papers were cost-effectiveness studies (64%), led by a clinician or public-health professional (77%), using decision analysis-based methods (59%), published in an international journal (80%) and addressing communicable diseases (58%). In addition, 42% were funded by an international funding agency or UN/bilateral aid agency, and 30% focussed on pharmaceuticals. The average quality score of these full economic evaluations was 65.1%. The major limitation was the inability to address uncertainties involved in modelling as only about one-third of the studies assessed modelling structural uncertainties (33%), or ran sub-group analyses to account for heterogeneity (36.5%) or analysed methodological uncertainty (32%).

CONCLUSION

The existing literature on economic evaluations in India is inadequate to feed into sound policy making. There is an urgent need to generate awareness within the government of how economic evaluation can inform and benefit policy making, and at the same time build capacity of health-care professionals in understanding the economic principles of health-care delivery system.

The Economic Impact of Smoking and of Reducing Smoking Prevalence: Review of Evidence

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking is the cause of many preventable diseases and premature deaths in the UK and around the world. It poses enormous health- and non-health-related costs to the affected individuals, employers, and the society at large. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, globally, smoking causes over US$500 billion in economic damage each year.

OBJECTIVES

This paper examines global and UK evidence on the economic impact of smoking prevalence and evaluates the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of smoking cessation measures.

STUDY SELECTION

SEARCH METHODS We used two major health care/economic research databases, namely PubMed and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) database that contains the British National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database; Cochrane Library of systematic reviews in health care and health policy; and other health-care-related bibliographic sources. We also performed hand searching of relevant articles, health reports, and white papers issued by government bodies, international health organizations, and health intervention campaign agencies. SELECTION CRITERIA The paper includes cost-effectiveness studies from medical journals, health reports, and white papers published between 1992 and July 2014, but included only eight relevant studies before 1992. Most of the papers reviewed reported outcomes on smoking prevalence, as well as the direct and indirect costs of smoking and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions. We excluded papers that merely described the effectiveness of an intervention without including economic or cost considerations. We also excluded papers that combine smoking cessation with the reduction in the risk of other diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The included studies were assessed against criteria indicated in the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook version 5.0.0. OUTCOMES ASSESSED IN THE REVIEWPrimary outcomes of the selected studies are smoking prevalence, direct and indirect costs of smoking, and the costs and benefits of smoking cessation interventions (eg, "cost per quitter", "cost per life year saved", "cost per quality-adjusted life year gained," "present value" or "net benefits" from smoking cessation, and "cost savings" from personal health care expenditure).

MAIN RESULTS

The main findings of this study are as follows: The costs of smoking can be classified into direct, indirect, and intangible costs. About 15% of the aggregate health care expenditure in high-income countries can be attributed to smoking. In the US, the proportion of health care expenditure attributable to smoking ranges between 6% and 18% across different states. In the UK, the direct costs of smoking to the NHS have been estimated at between £2.7 billion and £5.2 billion, which is equivalent to around 5% of the total NHS budget each year. The economic burden of smoking estimated in terms of GDP reveals that smoking accounts for approximately 0.7% of China's GDP and approximately 1% of US GDP. As part of the indirect (non-health-related) costs of smoking, the total productivity losses caused by smoking each year in the US have been estimated at US$151 billion.The costs of smoking notwithstanding, it produces some potential economic benefits. The economic activities generated from the production and consumption of tobacco provides economic stimulus. It also produces huge tax revenues for most governments, especially in high-income countries, as well as employment in the tobacco industry. Income from the tobacco industry accounts for up to 7.4% of centrally collected government revenue in China. Smoking also yields cost savings in pension payments from the premature death of smokers.Smoking cessation measures could range from pharmacological treatment interventions to policy-based measures, community-based interventions, telecoms, media, and technology (TMT)-based interventions, school-based interventions, and workplace interventions.The cost per life year saved from the use of pharmacological treatment interventions ranged between US$128 and US$1,450 and up to US$4,400 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. The use of pharmacotherapies such as varenicline, NRT, and Bupropion, when combined with GP counseling or other behavioral treatment interventions (such as proactive telephone counseling and Web-based delivery), is both clinically effective and cost effective to primary health care providers.Price-based policy measures such as increase in tobacco taxes are unarguably the most effective means of reducing the consumption of tobacco. A 10% tax-induced cigarette price increase anywhere in the world reduces smoking prevalence by between 4% and 8%. Net public benefits from tobacco tax, however, remain positive only when tax rates are between 42.9% and 91.1%. The cost effectiveness ratio of implementing non-price-based smoking cessation legislations (such as smoking restrictions in work places, public places, bans on tobacco advertisement, and raising the legal age of smokers) range from US$2 to US$112 per life year gained (LYG) while reducing smoking prevalence by up to 30%-82% in the long term (over a 50-year period).Smoking cessation classes are known to be most effective among community-based measures, as they could lead to a quit rate of up to 35%, but they usually incur higher costs than other measures such as self-help quit-smoking kits. On average, community pharmacist-based smoking cessation programs yield cost savings to the health system of between US$500 and US$614 per LYG.Advertising media, telecommunications, and other technology-based interventions (such as TV, radio, print, telephone, the Internet, PC, and other electronic media) usually have positive synergistic effects in reducing smoking prevalence especially when combined to deliver smoking cessation messages and counseling support. However, the outcomes on the cost effectiveness of TMT-based measures have been inconsistent, and this made it difficult to attribute results to specific media. The differences in reported cost effectiveness may be partly attributed to varying methodological approaches including varying parametric inputs, differences in national contexts, differences in advertising campaigns tested on different media, and disparate levels of resourcing between campaigns. Due to its universal reach and low implementation costs, online campaign appears to be substantially more cost effective than other media, though it may not be as effective in reducing smoking prevalence.School-based smoking prevalence programs tend to reduce short-term smoking prevalence by between 30% and 70%. Total intervention costs could range from US$16,400 to US$580,000 depending on the scale and scope of intervention. The cost effectiveness of school-based programs show that one could expect a saving of approximately between US$2,000 and US$20,000 per QALY saved due to averted smoking after 2-4 years of follow-up.Workplace-based interventions could represent a sound economic investment to both employers and the society at large, achieving a benefit-cost ratio of up to 8.75 and generating 12-month employer cost savings of between $150 and $540 per nonsmoking employee. Implementing smoke-free workplaces would also produce myriads of new quitters and reduce the amount of cigarette consumption, leading to cost savings in direct medical costs to primary health care providers. Workplace interventions are, however, likely to yield far greater economic benefits over the long term, as reduced prevalence will lead to a healthier and more productive workforce.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce). There are enormous differences in the application and economic measurement of smoking cessation measures across various types of interventions, methodologies, countries, economic settings, and health care systems, and these may have affected the comparability of the results of the studies reviewed. However, on the balance of probabilities, most of the cessation measures reviewed have not only proved effective but also cost effective in delivering the much desired cost savings and net gains to individuals and primary health care providers.

Making the economic case for prevention--a view from Wales

BACKGROUND

It is widely acknowledged that adverse lifestyle behaviours in the population now will place an unsustainable burden on health service resources in the future. It has been estimated that the combined cost to the NHS in Wales of overweight and obesity, alcohol and tobacco is in excess of £540 million.In the current climate of financial austerity, there can be a tendency for the case for prevention efforts to be judged on the basis of their scope for cost savings. This paper was prompted by discussion in Wales about the evidence for the cost savings from prevention and early intervention and a resulting concern that these programmes were thus being evaluated in policy terms using an incorrect metric. Following a review of the literature, this paper contributes to the discussion of the potential role that economics can play in informing decisions in this area.

DISCUSSION

This paper argues that whilst studies of the economic burden of diseases provide information about the magnitude of the problem faced, they should not be used as a means of priority setting. Similarly, studies discussing the likelihood of savings as a result of prevention programmes may be distorting the arguments for public health.Prevention spend needs to be considered purposefully, resulting in a strategic commitment to spending. The role of economics in this process is to provide evidence demonstrating that information and support can be provided cost effectively to individuals to change their lifestyles thus avoiding lifestyle related morbidity and mortality. There is growing evidence that prevention programmes represent value for money using the currently accepted techniques and decision making metrics such as those advocated by NICE.

SUMMARY

The issue here is not one of arguing that the economic evaluation of prevention and early intervention should be treated differently, although in some instances that may be appropriate, rather it is about making the case for these interventions to be treated and evaluated to the same standard. The difficulty arises when a higher standard of cost saving may be expected from prevention and public health programmes.The paper concludes that it is of vital importance that during times of budget constraints, as currently faced, the public health budgets are not eroded to fund secondary care budget shortfalls, which are more easily identifiable. To do so would diminish any possibility of reducing the future burden faced by the NHS of lifestyle-related illnesses.