Our latest research, all in one place. Browse our collection of journal articles, reports and conference proceedings to see how we’re contributing to HEOR research. Remember to:
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.
BACKGROUND: Current management of malnutrition can include prescribed oral nutritional supplements (ONS); however, there is uncertainty whether these supplements are effective in people who are older (=65 years) and frail. We assessed the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and adherence and acceptability of ONS in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition.
METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, five bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL) and grey literature sources were searched from inception to Sept 13, 2021, to identify studies assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ONS (with or without other dietary interventions) in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Multiple reviewers independently did study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Quality was assessed using version 1.0 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the BMJ Drummond checklist was used to assess the quality of the included cost-effectiveness study. A meta-analysis was done for the effectiveness review; for the other reviews, a narrative synthesis approach was used. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020170906.
FINDINGS: Of 8492 records retrieved and screened, we included 11 RCTs involving 822 participants, six of which were fully or partly funded by industry. For the majority of the outcomes for which meta-analyses were possible (11/12), Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments suggested that the evidence was of very low certainty. Results suggested that ONS might have a slightly positive effect on energy (kcal) intake (standardised mean difference 1·02 [95% CI 0·15 to 1·88]; I2=87%; four studies), protein intake (standardised mean difference 1·67 [-0·03 to 3·37; I2=97%; four studies), and mobility (mean difference 0·03 [0·02 to 0·04]; I2=0%; four studies), compared with standard care. Narrative syntheses suggested that the effect of ONS on quality of life, compared with standard care, was mixed. In the identified studies, there was very little information related to active components, determinants, or acceptability of interventions. One economic evaluation, done in a care home setting, showed that ONS could be cost-effective.
INTERPRETATION: We found little evidence of ONS reducing malnutrition or its associated adverse outcomes in older people who are frail. High-quality, non-industry-funded, adequately powered studies reporting on short-term and long-term health outcomes, determinants, and participant characteristics are needed.
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a serious mental health condition characterised by distortions in thought processes, perception, mood, sense of self, and behaviour. Lurasidone, a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, represents an additional treatment option alongside existing antipsychotics for adolescents and adults with schizophrenia. An economic model was developed to evaluate the incremental costs of lurasidone as a first-line treatment option compared to existing antipsychotics.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost impact of lurasidone as a first-line treatment option for both adolescents and adults. The sequence-based model incorporated the following health states: stable (no relapse or discontinuation), discontinuation (due to adverse events or other reasons), and relapse. Data used to determine the movement of patients between health states were obtained from network meta-analyses (NMAs). The time horizon ranged from three to five years (depending on the patient population) and a six-weekly cycle length was used. Unit costs and resource use were reflective of the UK NHS and Personal Social Services and consisted of the following categories: outpatient, adverse events, primary and residential care. Extensive deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the level of uncertainty associated with the base case results.
RESULTS: Lurasidone is demonstrated to be cost-saving as a first-line treatment within the adolescent and adult populations when compared to second-line and third-line respectively. Lurasidone is more expensive in terms of treatment costs, resource use (in the stable health state) and the treatment of adverse events. However, these costs are outweighed by the savings associated with the relapse health state. Lurasidone remains cost-saving when inputs are varied in sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone is a cost-saving first-line treatment for schizophrenia for both adolescents and adults.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treating patients in psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) is costly for the English National Health Service (NHS), requiring significant staff time. Oxevision, a non-contact system, providing vision-based patient monitoring and management (VBPMM) has been introduced in some NHS mental health trusts which aims to help clinicians to deliver safer and more efficient care. The objective of this early economic evaluation was to explore the impact of introducing VBPMM with standard care, versus standard care alone on health and economic outcomes in PICUs across England.
METHODS: The model uses a cost calculator approach to evaluate the potential benefits of introducing VBPMM, capturing differences in observation hours and critical events such as assaults. Effectiveness data were primarily based on a 24-month observational before and after study undertaken in an NHS mental health trust using VBPMM. Outcomes reported in this study are incremental costs and reduction in clinical events presented as per occupied bed days, per patient, per average ward, and for the English NHS overall. Scenario analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of results using statistical significance of key inputs.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The analysis indicates that introducing VBPMM may be cost saving compared with standard care alone. The biggest driver of estimated cost savings was from the potential reduction in one to one observation hours, which may have significant impact in PICUs. Limitations of the analysis include the single center data underpinning the analysis and assumptions made about transferability of clinical data to different sized wards. Scenario analysis was conducted, and the results were robust to statistically significant changes in input parameters. This study suggests that introducing VBPMM on PICUs has the potential to reduce costs and improve efficiency of resource allocation, but results should be confirmed with additional clinical study evidence.
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) provides guidance on important aspects of conducting a test accuracy systematic review. In this paper we present TOMAS-R (Template of Multiplicity and Analysis in Systematic Reviews), a structured template to use in conjunction with current Cochrane DTA guidance, to help identify complexities in the review question and to assist planning of data extraction and analysis when clinically important variation and multiplicity is present. Examples of clinically important variation and multiplicity could include differences in participants, index tests and test methods, target conditions and reference standards used to define them, study design and methodological quality. Our TOMAS-R template goes beyond the broad topic headings in current guidance that are sources of potential variation and multiplicity, by providing prompts for common sources of heterogeneity encountered from our experience of authoring over 100 reviews. We provide examples from two reviews to assist users. The TOMAS-R template adds value by supplementing available guidance for DTA reviews by providing a tool to facilitate discussions between methodologists, clinicians, statisticians and patient/public team members to identify the full breadth of review question complexities early in the process. The use of a structured set of prompting questions at the important stage of writing the protocol ensures clinical relevance as a main focus of the review, while allowing identification of key clinical components for data extraction and later analysis thereby facilitating a more efficient review process.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, auto-immune condition that imposes a high burden on individuals, society, and the healthcare system. Approximately 4.4% of adults and up to 18.6% of children/adolescents have AD in Europe, with 20% of all cases accounting for moderate-to-severe forms. This form of the condition in adults results in annual societal costs across Europe of an estimated €30 billion; €15.2 billion related to missed workdays or reduced work productivity, €10.1 billion related to direct medical costs and €4.7 billion related to personal expenditure of patients/families. AD can also substantially impact physical, emotional, and social quality-of-life. Several studies have shown the debilitating itch-scratch cycle is the main cause of the multifaceted burden, as it causes substantial sleep deprivation and stigmatisation due to the physical appearance of the skin, and confidence issues. These factors lead to psychosocial issues and can cumulate over time and prohibit patients reaching their 'full life potential'. Despite this, many patients with the condition are undertreated, resulting in uncontrolled symptoms and a further strain placed on patients, society, and the economy. The authors of this White Paper comprise the European Atopic Dermatitis Working Group, which is a network of international specialists with expertise in dermatology and healthcare policy decisions. Their programme of action is focused on harnessing their expertise to build consensus, advance research, share knowledge, and ultimately seek to improve AD care outcomes through achieving long-term symptom control. This White Paper presents a systematic evaluation of the overall financial and humanistic burden of moderate-to-severe AD and the current challenges that exist with AD care. It introduces recommendations for how, collaboratively, key stakeholders and policy makers can support improvements in AD management to achieve better disease control, thus reducing the costs and associated burden placed on individuals, society, and the economy.
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare policy makers should ensure optimal patient access to medical nutrition (MN) as part of the management of nutrition-related disorders and conditions. Questions remain whether current healthcare policies reflect the clinical and economic benefits of MN. The objective of this article is to characterize coverage and reimbursement of MN, defined as food for special medical purposes/medical food for a diverse set of countries, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States.
METHODS: Data sources included published literature and online sources. ISPOR's Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group developed a data collection form to guide data extraction that included reimbursement coverage, years that reimbursement policies were established, and presence of a formal health technology assessment (HTA) for MN technologies.
RESULTS: Reimbursement coverage of MN technologies varied across the countries that were reviewed. All but 3 countries limited coverage to specific formulations of products, regardless of demonstrated clinical benefit. The year that reimbursement policies were established varied across countries (ranging from 1984 to 2017), and only 4 countries regularly update policies. France and Brazil are the only countries with a formal HTA process for MN technologies.
CONCLUSIONS: Most countries have limited MN reimbursement, have not updated reimbursement policies, and lack HTA for MN technologies. These limitations may lead to suboptimal access to MN technologies where they are indicated to manage nutrition-related disorders and conditions, with the potential of negatively affecting patient and healthcare system outcomes.
