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:
There has been no extensive synthesis of studies evaluating the cost of chronic hand eczema (CHE). This review evaluated the societal costs, healthcare resource utilisation, missed work time and job loss due to CHE. MEDLINE and 16 other databases and websites were searched in October 2020 for studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria. Studies conducted in Europe, Australia, New Zealand or the Americas were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, and full-text papers published in English between 2000 and 2020, for relevance. Data extraction was carried out by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. All data were based on costs between 2001 and 2013 but have been inflated to 2020 prices and converted to US dollars and Euros. A total of 30 studies (reported in 33 publications) were included in the synthesis. Mean total societal costs per year per patient ranged from $2549 (1813) to $10,883 (7738). Pharmacological therapy was, on average, $28.34 (€20.15) per month in Italy and $36.49 (€25.94) per month for emollients in Switzerland. Yearly treatment costs were $599.05 (€425.92) for drugs, including topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, other topical treatments and oral treatments, and $178.40 for emollients, in Germany. CHE was associated with hospitalisation costs ranging from $81.86 (€58.20) per patient per month (US) to $105.04 (€74.68) per patient per month (Italy) and $639.59 (€454.75) per year (Germany). Up to 57% of patients took sick leave and up to 25% reported job loss/job change due to CHE. This review confirms the significant cost burden of CHE. Given the paucity of studies estimating the monetary costs of absenteeism, presenteeism and job loss associated with CHE, current mean societal costs are likely underestimated. Uncontrolled disease may also lead to increased costs to patients and society.
Matthew Taylor explains the methods and challenges associated with evaluating biologic treatments for arthritis.
AIMS: High dose trivalent influenza vaccine (HD TIV) and adjuvant TIV (aTIV) have been developed specifically for adults aged 65 and older (65+) who are at high risk of life-threatening complications. However, there is a scarcity of evidence comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HD TIV and aTIV. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV in the England and Wales 65+ population.
METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision tree with two influenza related outcomes: Laboratory confirmed cases that could result in GP consultation, and hospitalizations that may result in premature mortality. Due to a lack of comparative evidence, the effectiveness of HD TIV versus aTIV was calculated indirectly, based on relative effectiveness estimates for each vaccine versus a common comparator, standard dose (SD) TIV. The primary analysis included hospitalizations explicitly due to influenza/pneumonia. Cost-effectiveness was established for three scenarios applying differing relative effectiveness estimates for aTIV versus SD TIV. Uncertainty was analysed in one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses. A secondary analysis included hospitalizations due to any respiratory illness.
RESULTS: The minimum population impact of vaccination with HD TIV rather than aTIV was 13,092 fewer influenza cases, 1,109 fewer influenza related deaths, 4,673 fewer hospitalizations, and 3,245 fewer GP appointments. HD TIV was cost-effective versus aTIV for all three effectiveness scenarios, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) equal to £1,932, £4,181, and £8,767 per quality adjusted life year. Results were consistent across the secondary analysis and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
LIMITATIONS: The analysis was limited by a lack of robust and consistent effectiveness data for aTIV.
CONCLUSION: HD TIV is cost-effective versus aTIV in people aged 65+ in England and Wales. Use of HD TIV over aTIV could increase clinical benefits and reduce the public health and economic burden of influenza.
BACKGROUND: There is limited guidance on which biologic therapies should be prioritised for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, amongst the many available options. New mode-of-action biologics, as well as recently available biosimilars for existing biologics, continue to be developed making the choice of treatment sequence increasingly complex.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to determine the optimal placement of biologic therapies on the treatment pathway for psoriasis in the UK.
METHODS: A cohort-based Markov model was developed in Microsoft Excel, from the perspective of the National Health Service and Personal and Social Services in the UK. The model followed a hypothetical cohort of patients over a lifetime. The health states in the model were defined by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response. In the model, patients could receive a total of four separate treatments, including three active interventions and best supportive care.
RESULTS: A fully incremental analysis was undertaken on a subset of commonly used treatment sequences. The results of the list price analyses determined the most cost-effective sequence to be adalimumab biosimilar followed by ustekinumab, secukinumab, then best supportive care. This sequence is associated with total costs of £78,731 and total quality-adjusted life-years of 14.74 over a patient's lifetime.
CONCLUSIONS: This research suggests that the optimal first-line treatment in the UK is adalimumab biosimilar. The optimal second-line and third-line treatments depend on the magnitude of confidential discounts applied to the biologic treatments.
This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to estimate the relative efficacy of dry cow antimicrobial therapies, registered in Canada and/or the United States, to cure existing intramammary infections (IMI) in dairy cattle. The controlled trials examining all-cause cures of existing IMI present at dry-off were eligible. Five databases and four conference proceeding platforms were searched. The risk of bias at the level of the outcome was assessed using the Cochrane 2.0 risk of bias instrument (Cochrane, Denmark), and the overall confidence in the findings from the network meta-analysis was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) platform. Of 3,743 articles screened for eligibility by the two independent reviewers, 58 trials were included in the Bayesian network meta-analysis for the all-cause cure of existing IMI from dry-off to calving. No antimicrobial treatment (non-active control) was associated with a decreased risk of a cure compared with all other currently labeled antimicrobials in Canada and the United States; however, lack of replication trials for some antimicrobial products created large credibility intervals and, therefore, we were unable to identify meaningful comparisons between the products. Poor reporting of trial features, heterogeneity in outcome measurements, and high risk of bias in some domains further contributed to this inability to compare antimicrobials. Continued improvement in the reporting of animal trials is required to make recommendations for antimicrobial products on the basis of efficacy.
The growing recognition of the importance of the natural environment, and in particular of green and blue spaces, for mental and physical health has led to numerous scientific studies that provide evidence on a wide range of health outcomes. Among the health effects of green and blue spaces, mental health is one of the most investigated outcomes. WHO recognizes the substantial importance of the benefits related to green and blue spaces, and the critical need to support these spaces to protect and promote health and well-being. This report presents the main results of two systematic reviews on types and characteristics of green and blue spaces and mental health, conducted by the Expert Working Group (EWG) on Biodiversity and Mental Health of the EKLIPSE project. By focusing on mental health, and how various kinds of mental disorders are impacted by green and blue spaces, the analysis synthesizes evidence in an understanding of the interactions between environment and health. Information from earlier WHO reports and activities has also been provided so that the results of the EKLIPSE systematic reviews presented here can be put into the context of the general public health framework of which they are part.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of contact with green and blue spaces in fostering the ability of communities to cope with the stress of the threat of the virus and the physical restrictions imposed in response to it, and also the role of such spaces as alternative places for physical activity and social interaction.
The results and conclusions of the EKLIPSE reviews are of relevance to the health sector, where policies and programmes generally target specific health issues. Besides direct or immediate health and well-being benefits, interventions on green and blue spaces can generate other benefits, related to ecosystem services such as climate adaptation and reduction of air pollution, and can improve opportunities for social interaction. A deeper understanding of the beneficial and restorative impacts of various types and characteristics of green and blue spaces can help guide policy-makers in designing cities that not only support mental health, but also reduce costs to the health-care system. The findings are also relevant to non-health sectors, whose activities influence the planning, design and maintenance of green and blue spaces and, thereby, indirectly affect health and well-being.
In the absence of head-to-head trials of first-line treatments for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), synthesis of available evidence is needed. We conducted a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with stage IV NSCLC and high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Patients with other-stage NSCLC or without PD-L1 expression and populations with < 80% stage IV NSCLC were excluded. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-related adverse events. English records from MEDLINE and Embase published through October 2020 were eligible, supplemented by hand searches of other sources. Three evidence networks were constructed based on histology (mixed, squamous, non-squamous). OS and PFS results were analyzed applying Bayesian fractional polynomial random-effects models. Hazard ratios over time with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and expected differences in OS and PFS between each cancer immunotherapy regimen and the chemotherapy common comparator were generated. Seventeen clinical trials were included after screening 32,527 records. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were generally low across trials. In the mixed-histology network of PD-L1-high patients, expected OS was significantly longer with atezolizumab (estimated difference: 10.4 months [95% CrI: 1.9, 18.2]), pembrolizumab (7.2 [2.2, 12.3]), and cemiplimab (13.0 [4.2, 21.0]) versus chemotherapy but not with nivolumab (3.5 [-2.5, 10.6]) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (6.7 [-0.5, 14.2]) versus chemotherapy. OS improvements were not significant compared with chemotherapy for any regimen in the squamous and non-squamous networks, except pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the non-squamous network. All regimens showed significantly longer expected PFS versus chemotherapy in the non-squamous network, whereas the increases were not significant in the mixed or squamous networks. ORR was significantly higher with pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy in the mixed-histology network, with sintilimab in the non-squamous network, and with combination regimens, including pembrolizumab or atezolizumab, in the squamous and non-squamous networks, except with atezolizumab plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab. Survival and safety versus chemotherapy were generally similar across cancer immunotherapies and histology networks. These findings may support treatment decisions for patients with high PD-L1 status receiving first-line treatment for NSCLC.
