METHOD: This scoping review systematically searched PubMed and Embase from 2015 to 2023. We included economic evaluation studies comparing RAS versus laparoscopic or open surgery. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to aid data extraction and was extended to cover additional features relevant to RAS, including learning curve, organisational impact, incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.
RESULTS: A total of 50 economic evaluations of RAS were included. Cost-utility analysis (46%) was the most commonly applied economic evaluation method, followed by cost-consequence analysis (32%). The studies focused on the specialties of urology (42%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (20%), colorectal (14%) and gynaecology (6%). Distinctive features related to the assessment of RAS were under-addressed in economic evaluations. Only 40% of the included studies considered learning curve and organisational impact and less than 12% of the included studies reflected on incremental innovation and dynamic pricing.
CONCLUSIONS: This review found that some studies have incorporated challenges specific to RAS in their evaluations. However, most studies still lack key aspects of importance. In particular, studies rarely considered the ability of RAS platforms to be shared across multiple specialities. Incorporating these distinctive features offers an opportunity for economic evaluation to provide decision-makers with a more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of this technology and to ensure its optimal utilisation in clinical practice.
METHODS: The relevant studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane from the inception date to June 1, 2024. The titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently evaluated and screened by two authors. Additionally, the economic evaluation studies were assessed independently by two authors using the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards checklist.
RESULTS: 14 studies were included which were about the economic evaluations of adding dapagliflozin in the treatment of chronic kidney disease. The minimum consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards score for the studies was 0.77, indicating very good quality. Adding dapagliflozin to the standard of care would be more effective and cost-saving in Mexico, Malaysia, Canada, Thailand, and China. The highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dapagliflozin ($67962.75/QALY) originated from the USA. According to the available studies, adding dapagliflozin to standard of care for the treatment of chronic kidney disease is considered cost-effectiveness from both the healthcare system and the payer's perspective.
CONCLUSION: Adding dapagliflozin to standard care in the treatment of chronic kidney disease is cost-effective from both the healthcare system and the payer's perspective in well-developed countries.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by examining online databases (Scopus, MEDLINE and Science Direct) to identify health economic evaluation studies of COVID-19 vaccines. Critical appraisal of studies was conducted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were selected for analysis. Results show two strategies that were cost-effective compared to its comparators: mass vaccination program compared to no vaccination and universal vaccination approach compared to a risk-stratified vaccination approach. Several other strategies were found to increase the cost-consequences in the COVID-19 vaccination program: higher vaccine effectiveness, higher vaccination pace, increased vaccination coverage, and vaccine prioritisation for an at-risk population. The study findings were restricted to analysis based on the current available data.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination policies should aim for increased vaccine production as well as a rapid and extensive vaccine delivery system to ensure the maximal value of vaccination strategies. These results can aid policymakers in opting for the most efficient approach to vaccinating the population during this COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemic.
METHODOLOGY: Using a decision analytic model with input parameters from published literature, local data, and expert opinion, we projected the impact of "full access" (100%) to antivenom, compared to "current access" in five most impacted ASEAN countries, including Indonesia (10%), Philippines (26%), Vietnam (37%), Lao PDR (4%), and Myanmar (64%), from a societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In base-case analyses, full access compared to current access to snake antivenom in the five countries resulted in a total of 9,362 deaths averted (-59%), 230,075 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted (-59%), and cost savings of 1.3 billion USD (-53%). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of improving access to antivenom found higher outcomes but lower costs in all countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses of 1,000 iterations found that 98.1-100% of ICERs were cost-saving.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Improving access to snake antivenom will result in cost-saving for ASEAN countries. Our findings emphasized the importance of further strengthening regional cooperation, investment, and funding to improve the situation of snakebite victims in ASEAN countries.
METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based cost calculator was developed for such comparison. The estimated size of eligible population, uptake rates for dapagliflozin, as well as costs related to drugs, clinical events, and adverse events were based on published data, official tariffs, and databases, and expert opinion. Clinical data from the DAPA-HF trial were used to inform efficacy and safety inputs (i.e., hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), cardiovascular death, and adverse events). Results were reported as total annual and cumulative costs (in 2023 Malaysian Ringgits [RM], United States Dollars [USD], and European Union Euros, [EUR]; with exchange rates of 1 USD = RM 4.40 and 1 EUR = RM 4.90]), as well as the number of clinical events. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted.
FINDINGS: The base-case analysis estimated that over a five-year period, the adoption of dapagliflozin for HFrEF treatment would result in a cumulative cost-saving of RM 2.6 million (USD 0.6 million/EUR 0.5 million), representing a 0.3% reduction in costs, driven primarily by reduced expenditure on hHF. Moreover, dapagliflozin treatment would lead to 731 fewer hHF and 366 fewer cardiovascular deaths. Sensitivity and scenario analyses revealed that the results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding loop diuretic requirements and the cost of dapagliflozin. Although cost savings or a net-zero balance were projected for the first four years, an anticipated 2.5% annual increase in dapagliflozin uptake in the longer term would lead to additional costs for the MOH, starting from the fifth year.
IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating dapagliflozin into the SoC can improve health outcomes for HFrEF patients and may generate cost savings, potentially easing the economic strain of HFrEF management on Malaysia's public healthcare system in the short term. Nonetheless, a modest increase in budget should be anticipated as more patients gain access to the treatment over time.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to find the eligible studies and perform a comprehensive data analysis.
RESULTS: Based on the findings, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic loss assessment, modeling, or mapping, as well as behavioral economic analysis were used as the economic evaluation approaches/methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Applying economic evaluation approaches to illustrate the economic costs of disasters is highly recommended. Managing competing priorities and optimizing resources allocations to the most cost-effective interventions can be achieved by cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of economic loss assessment can be used as the basis of disaster preparedness and response planning. Economic modeling can be applied to compare different interventions and anticipate socio-economic effects of disasters. A behavioral economic approach can be effective for decision-making in the field of disaster health management. Further research is needed to identify the advantages and limitations of each economic evaluation method/approach in the field of health in disasters. Such research can preferably be designed as the systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.
DISCUSSION: The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).
METHODS: A microsimulation decision tree model was used to model the ACT NOW intervention (including annual clinical breast examination (CBE) and biannual breast ultrasound for women at high risk of breast cancer) over 5 years for healthy women 40-69 years old. Outcomes included health gains (breast cancer deaths saved), financial protection (financial catastrophes saved) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) (cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) saved). Outcomes were stratified by income group. Probabilistic, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses explored uncertainty.
RESULTS: Over 5 years, the ACT NOW intervention is cost-effective with an ICER of PHP60 711 (USD1098) (average incremental cost PHP743 [95% UI 424-960] and DALYs saved 0.01 [95% UI 0.01-0.02], below Philippines 2022 gross domestic product per capita PHP178 751). Per 100 000 women, 57 deaths and eight financial catastrophes were saved. Cost-effectiveness did not vary significantly by income, but higher income groups incurred greater costs and lower DALYs. Results were sensitive to proportion of late-stage breast cancers post intervention, treatment adherence, intervention costs and downstaging effectiveness. Trade-offs are apparent between government contributions to financial protection and rates of financial catastrophe.
CONCLUSIONS: Early detection interventions (annual CBE, biannual breast ultrasound if at high risk of breast cancer) are likely to be cost-effective, reduce breast cancer-related mortality through detection at earlier stages and modestly effective in reducing the incidence of financial catastrophe. Further research is required to establish the best implementation model to pursue full implementation and ways of designing equity-based screening interventions.
Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Econlit for articles published from inception to 31 July 2019. Original articles reporting costs or full economic evaluation related with snakebites were included. The methods and reporting quality were assessed. Costs were presented in US dollars (US$) in 2018.
Results: Twenty-three cost of illness studies and three economic evaluation studies related to snakebites were included. Majority of studies (18/23, 78.26%) were conducted in Low- and Middle-income countries. Most cost of illness studies (82.61%) were done using hospital-based data of snakebite patients. While, four studies (17.39%) estimated costs of snakebites in communities. Five studies (21.74%) used societal perspective estimating both direct and indirect costs. Only one study (4.35%) undertook incidence-based approach to estimate lifetime costs. Only three studies (13.04%) estimated annual national economic burdens of snakebite which varied drastically from US$126 319 in Burkina Faso to US$13 802 550 in Sri Lanka. Quality of the cost of illness studies were varied and substantially under-reported. All three economic evaluation studies were cost-effectiveness analysis using decision tree model. Two of them assessed cost-effectiveness of having full access to antivenom and reported cost-effective findings.
Conclusions: Economic burdens of snakebite were underestimated and not extensively studied. To accurately capture the economic burdens of snakebites at both the global and local level, hospital data should be collected along with community survey and economic burdens of snakebites should be estimated both in short-term and long-term period to incorporate the lifetime costs and productivity loss due to premature death, disability, and consequences of snakebites.