Dataset Information

Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cost-effectiveness is a tool to maximize health benefits and to improve efficiency in healthcare. However, efficient outcomes are not always the most equitable ones. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) offers a framework for incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective

This systematic review aims to outline the challenges and limitations in applying DCEA in healthcare settings.

Methods

We searched Medline, Scopus, BASE, APA Psych, and JSTOR databases. We also included Google Scholar. We searched for English-language peer-reviewed academic publications, while books, editorials and commentary papers were excluded. Titles and abstract screening, full-text screening, reference list reviews, and data extraction were performed by the main researcher. Another researcher checked every paper for eligibility. Details, such as study population, disease area, intervention and comparators, costs and health effects, cost-effectiveness findings, equity analysis and effects, and modelling technique, were extracted. Thematic analysis was applied, focusing on challenges, obstacles, and gaps in DCEA.

Results

In total, 615 references were identified, of which 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were published after 2017. DCEA studies were mainly conducted in Europe and Africa and used quality health-adjusted measurements. In the included studies, absolute inequality indices were used more frequently than relative inequality indices. Every stage of the DCEA presented challenges and/or limitations.

Conclusion

This review provides an overview of the literature on the DCEA in healthcare as well as the challenges and limitations related to the different steps needed to conduct the analysis. In particular, we found problems with data availability, the relative unfamiliarity of this analysis among policymakers, and challenges in estimating differences among socioeconomic groups.

SUBMITTER: Steijger D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9819735 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Steijger Dirk D Chatterjee Chandrima C Groot Wim W Pavlova Milena M

International journal of environmental research and public health 20221228 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cost-effectiveness is a tool to maximize health benefits and to improve efficiency in healthcare. However, efficient outcomes are not always the most equitable ones. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) offers a framework for incorporating equity concerns into cost-effectiveness analysis.<h4>Objective</h4>This systematic review aims to outline the challenges and limitations in applying DCEA in healthcare settings.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline, Scopus, BASE, ...[more]

PMID: 36612824

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has changed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and technology appraisals (TAs) evaluating IO therapies have been recently published.ObjectiveWe reviewed economic models of first-line (1L) IO therapies for previously untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC to identify methodological challenges associated with modeling cost effectiveness from published literature and TAs and to make recommendations for future CEAs in this disease area.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted following Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit (January 2009-January 2020), and select conferences (since 2016) for CEAs of 1L IO treatments in patients with recurrent or metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation-negative NSCLC, published in English. TAs from England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France were also examined. Two reviewers screened the results and extracted the data. The quality of the CEAs was described using the Drummond checklist.ResultsIn total, 46 records reporting on 38 unique models met protocol-defined criteria and were included. Five models adjusted for treatment switching or crossover in base-case analyses, and the remainder considered treatment switching or crossover to represent clinical practice and made no adjustment. Seven models used external real-world data for survival modeling or extrapolation validation. Six models that assumed long-term treatment benefit stopped at 3 or 5 years after initiation. Seven models used the observed time-on-treatment distribution from the trial, and eight used progression-free survival for treatment duration. All models compared one or more IO monotherapies or combination therapies with chemotherapy. Only one study directly compared different IO agents but did not consider the concordance issue across programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing methods. Utilities were modeled by health state in 12 models, four applied a time-to-death approach, and ten explored both. None applied cure models.ConclusionVariations in methodological challenges were seen across studies. Previous models took approaches that were followed in subsequent models, such as a 2-year stopping rule of IO duration or treatment-effect waning. Challenges such as heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing and survival extrapolation and validation using real-world data should be further considered for future models in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Project description:In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in tumor microenvironment-associated cancer vaccine therapies. These innovative treatments aim to activate and enhance the body's natural immune response against cancer cells by utilizing specific antigens present in the tumor microenvironment. The goal is to achieve a complete clinical response, where all measurable cancer cells are either eliminated or greatly reduced in size. With their potential to revolutionize cancer treatment, these therapies represent a promising avenue for researchers and clinicians alike. Despite over 100 years of research, the success of therapeutic cancer vaccines has been variable, particularly in advanced cancer patients, with various limitations, including the heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment, the presence of immunosuppressive cells, and the potential for tumor escape mechanisms. Additionally, the effectiveness of these therapies may be limited by the variability of the patient's immune system response and the difficulty in identifying appropriate antigens for each patient. Despite these challenges, tumor microenvironment-targeted vaccine cancer therapies have shown promising results in preclinical and clinical studies and have the potential to become a valuable addition to current cancer treatment and "curative" options. While chemotherapeutic and monoclonal antibody treatments remain popular, ongoing research is needed to optimize the design and delivery of these therapies and to identify biomarkers that can predict response and guide patient selection. This comprehensive review explores the mechanisms of cancer vaccines, various delivery methods, and the role of adjuvants in improving treatment outcomes. It also discusses the historical background of cancer vaccine research and examines the current state of major cancer vaccination immunotherapies. Furthermore, the limitations and effectiveness of each vaccine type are analyzed, providing insights into the future of cancer vaccine development.

Project description:ObjectiveTo demonstrate how distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood obesity interventions could be conducted and presented for decision makers.MethodsWe conducted modelled distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of three obesity interventions in children: an infant sleep intervention (POI-Sleep), a combined infant sleep, food, activity and breastfeeding intervention (POI-Combo) and a clinician-led treatment for primary school-aged children with overweight and obesity (High Five for Kids). For each intervention, costs and socioeconomic position (SEP)-specific effect sizes were applied to an Australian child cohort (n = 4898). Using a purpose-built microsimulation model we simulated SEP-specific body mass index (BMI) trajectories, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from age 4 to 17 years for control and intervention cohorts. We examined the distribution of each health outcome across SEP and determined the net health benefit and equity impact accounting for opportunity costs and uncertainty due to individual-level heterogeneity. Finally, we conducted scenario analyses to test the effect of assumptions about health system marginal productivity, the distribution of opportunity costs and SEP-specific effect sizes. The results of the primary analyses, uncertainty analyses and scenario analyses were presented on an efficiency-equity impact plane.ResultsAccounting for uncertainty, POI-Sleep and High Five for Kids were found to be 'win-win' interventions, with a 67% and 100% probability, respectively, of generating a net health benefit and positive equity impact compared with control. POI-Combo was found to be a 'lose-lose' intervention, with a 91% probability of producing a net health loss and a negative equity impact compared with control. Scenario analyses indicated that SEP-specific effect sizes were highly influential on equity impact estimates for POI-Combo and High Five for Kids, while health system marginal productivity and opportunity cost distribution assumptions primarily influenced the net health benefit and equity impact of POI-Combo.ConclusionsThese analyses demonstrated that distributional cost-effectiveness analyses using a fit-for-purpose model are appropriate for differentiating and communicating the efficiency and equity impacts of childhood obesity interventions.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis is often considered to be a disease of women. Over the last few years, owing to the increasing clinical and economic burden, the awareness and imperative for identifying and managing osteoporosis in men have increased substantially. With the approval of agents to treat men with osteoporosis, more economic evaluations have been conducted to assess the potential economic benefits of these interventions. Despite this concern, there is no specific overview of cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of osteoporosis in men.ObjectivesThis study aims (1) to systematically review economic evaluations of interventions for osteoporosis in men; (2) to critically appraise the quality of included studies and the source of model input data; and (3) to investigate the comparability of results for studies including both men and women.MethodsA literature search mainly using MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases was undertaken to identify original articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2022. Studies that assessed the cost effectiveness of interventions for osteoporosis in men were included. The Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases and the International Osteoporosis Foundation osteoporosis-specific guideline was used to assess the quality of design, conduct, and reporting of included studies.ResultsOf 2973 articles identified, 25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, classified into economic evaluations of active drugs (n = 8) or nutritional supplements (n = 4), intervention thresholds (n = 5), screening strategies (n = 6), and post-fracture care programs (n = 2). Most studies were conducted in European countries (n = 15), followed by North America (n = 9). Bisphosphonates (namely alendronate) and nutritional supplements were shown to be generally cost effective compared with no treatment in men over 60 years of age with osteoporosis or prior fractures. Two other studies suggested that denosumab was cost effective in men aged 75 years and older with osteoporosis compared with bisphosphates and teriparatide. Intervention thresholds at which bisphosphonates were found to be cost effective varied among studies with a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture that ranged from 8.9 to 34.2% for different age categories. A few studies suggested cost effectiveness of screening strategies and post-fracture care programs in men. Similar findings regarding the cost effectiveness of drugs and intervention thresholds in women and men were captured, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men. The quality of the studies included had an average score of 18.8 out of 25 (range 13-23.5). Hip fracture incidence and mortality risk were mainly derived from studies in men, while fracture cost, treatment efficacy, and disutility were commonly derived from studies in women or studies combining both sexes.ConclusionsAnti-osteoporosis drugs and nutritional supplements are generally cost effective in men with osteoporosis. Screening strategies and post-fracture care programs also showed economic benefits for men. Cost-effectiveness and intervention thresholds were generally similar in studies conducted in both men and women, with slightly greater incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in men.

Project description:The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched - Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest - from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.

Project description:BackgroundConsiderable evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of biomedical, non-surgical interventions to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission has been generated over the last decade. This study aims to synthesize findings and identify remaining knowledge gaps to suggest future research priorities.MethodsA systematic literature review was carried out in August 2020 using the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and EconLit databases to retrieve economic evaluations and costing studies of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), injectable long-acting PrEP, vaginal microbicide rings and gels, HIV vaccines and broadly neutralizing antibodies. Studies reporting costs from the provider or societal perspective were included in the analysis. Those reporting on behavioural methods of prevention, condoms and surgical approaches (voluntary medical male circumcision) were excluded. The quality of reporting of the included studies was assessed using published checklists.ResultsWe identified 3007 citations, of which 87 studies were retained. Most were set in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; n = 53) and focused on the costs and/or cost-effectiveness of oral PrEP regimens (n = 70). Model-based economic evaluations were the most frequent study design; only two trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses and nine costing studies were found. Less than half of the studies provided practical details on how the intervention would be delivered by the health system, and only three of these, all in LMICs, explicitly focused on service integration and its implication for delivery costs. 'Real-world' programme delivery mechanisms and costs of intervention delivery were rarely considered. PrEP technologies were generally found to be cost-effective only when targeting high-risk subpopulations. Single-dose HIV vaccines are expected to be cost-effective for all groups despite substantial uncertainty around pricing.ConclusionsA lack of primary, detailed and updated cost data, including above-service level costs, from a variety of settings makes it difficult to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of specific delivery modes at scale, or to evaluate strategies for services integration. Closing this evidence gap around real-world implementation is vital, not least because the strategies targeting high-risk groups that are recommended by PrEP models may incur substantially higher costs and be of limited practical feasibility in some settings.

Dataset Information

Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets