Dataset Information

A systematic review of hepatitis B screening economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis B infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. Economic evaluations are a useful decision tool to assess costs versus benefits of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening. No published study reviewing economic evaluations of HBV screening in LMICs has been undertaken to date. METHODS:The following databases were searched from inception to 21 April 2017: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, Global Health and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. English-language studies were included if they assessed the costs against the benefits of HBV screening in LMICs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024391, 20 July 2015. RESULTS:Nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. One study from Thailand indicated that adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) to HBV vaccination for newborns following screening of pregnant women might be cost-effective for some LMICs, though inadequate total funding and health infrastructure were likely to limit feasibility. A similar study from China indicated a benefit to cost ratio of 2.7 from selective HBIG administration to newborns, if benefits were considered from a societal perspective. Of the two studies assessing screening amongst the general adult population, a single cost-benefit analysis from China found a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 1.73 with vaccination guided by HBV screening of adults aged 21-39, compared to 1.42 with vaccination with no screening, both from a societal perspective. Community-based screening of adults in The Gambia with linkage to treatment yielded an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year averted of $566 (in 2017 USD), less than two-times gross domestic product per capita for that country. CONCLUSIONS:Screening with 'catch-up' vaccination for younger adults yielded benefits above costs, and screening linked with treatment has shown cost-effectiveness that may be affordable for some LMICs. However, interpretation needs to account for total cost implications and further research in LMICs is warranted as there were only nine included studies and evidence from high-income countries is not always directly applicable.

SUBMITTER: Wright CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5859762 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of hepatitis B screening economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries.

Wright Cameron M CM Boudarène Lydia L Ha Ninh Thi NT Wu Olivia O Hawkins Neil N

BMC public health 20180320 1

<h4>Background</h4>Chronic hepatitis B infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. Economic evaluations are a useful decision tool to assess costs versus benefits of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening. No published study reviewing economic evaluations of HBV screening in LMICs has been undertaken to date.<h4>Methods</h4>The following databases were searched from inception to 21 April 2017: MEDLINE ...[more]

PMID: 29558894

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow-and middle-income countries are facing both a mounting burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) as well as severe resource constraints that keep them from emulating some of the extensive strategies pursued in high-income countries. There is thus an urgency to identify and implement those interventions that help reap the biggest reductions of the CVD burden, given low resource levels. What are the interventions to combat CVDs that represent good "value for money" in low-and middle-income countries? This study reviews the evidence-base on economic evaluations of interventions located in those countries.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of journal articles published until 2009, based on a comprehensive key-word based search in generic and specialized electronic databases, accompanied by manual searches of expert databases. The search strategy consisted of freetext and MeSH terms related to economic evaluation and cardiovascular disease. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics.ResultsThirty-three studies met the selection criteria. We find a growing research interest, in particular in most recent years, if from a very low baseline. Most interventions fall under the category primary prevention, as opposed to case management or secondary prevention. Across the spectrum of interventions, pharmaceutical strategies have been the predominant focus, and, taken at face value, these show significant positive economic evidence, specifically when compared to the counterfactual of no interventions. Only a few studies consider non-clinical interventions, at population level. Almost half of the studies have modelled the intervention effectiveness based on existing risk-factor information and effectiveness evidence from high-income countries.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness evidence on CVD interventions in developing countries is growing, but remains scarce, and is biased towards pharmaceutical interventions. While the burden of cardiovascular disease is growing in these countries, future research should put greater emphasis on non-clinical interventions than has hitherto been the case. Significant differences in outcome measures and methodologies prohibit a direct ranking of the interventions by their degree of cost-effectiveness. Considerable caution should be exercised when transferring effectiveness estimates from developed countries for the purpose of modelling cost-effectiveness in developing countries. New local CVD risk factor and intervention follow-up studies are needed. Some pharmaceutical strategies appear cost-effective while clarifications are needed on the diagnostic approach in single high-risk factor vs. absolute risk targeting, the role of patient compliance, and the potential public health consequences of large-scale medicalization.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the cost of delivering breast cancer (BC) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to guide effective care delivery strategies. This scoping review summarizes the scope of literature on the costs of BC care in LMICs and characterizes the methodological approaches of these economic evaluations.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed in five databases and gray literature up to March 2020. Studies were screened to identify original articles that included a cost outcome for BC diagnosis or treatment in an LMIC. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for eligibility. Data related to study characteristics and methodology were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond et al. checklist.ResultsNinety-one articles across 38 countries were included. The majority (73%) of studies were published between 2013 and 2020. Low-income countries (2%) and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (9%) were grossly underrepresented. The majority of studies (60%) used a health care system perspective. Time horizon was not reported in 30 studies (33%). Of the 33 studies that estimated the cost of multiple steps in the BC care pathway, the majority (73%) were of high quality, but studies varied in their inclusion of nonmedical direct and indirect costs.ConclusionThere has been substantial growth in the number of BC economic evaluations in LMICs in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa. BC economic evaluations should be prioritized in these countries. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses.Implications for practiceThere has been substantial growth in the number of breast cancer economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries. Breast cancer economic evaluations should be prioritized in low-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers should strive to use and report a costing perspective and time horizon that captures all costs relevant to the study objective, including those such as direct nonmedical and indirect costs. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations in LMICs may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses in order to guide breast cancer control strategies.

Project description:BackgroundCommon mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.ObjectiveThe proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.MethodsWe will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsThe results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.ConclusionThe fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020185277.

Project description:BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact.MethodsWe developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information.ResultsSix budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the economic burden of multiple sclerosis (MS) in high-income countries (HICs) has been extensively studied, information on the costs of MS in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains scarce. Moreover, no review synthesizing and assessing the costs of MS in LMICs has yet been undertaken.ObjectiveOur objective was to systematically identify and review the cost of illness (COI) of MS in LMICs to critically appraise the methodologies used, compare cost estimates across countries and by level of disease severity, and examine cost drivers.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search for original studies in English, French, and Dutch containing prevalence or incidence-based cost data of MS in LMICs. The search was conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, and CINAHL (EBSCO) on July 2020 without restrictions on publication date. Recommended and validated methods were used for data extraction and analysis to make the results of the COI studies comparable. Costs were adjusted to $US, year 2019 values, using the World Bank purchasing power parity and inflated using the consumer price index.ResultsA total of 14 studies were identified, all of which were conducted in upper-middle-income economies. Eight studies used a bottom-up approach for costing, and six used a top-down approach. Four studies used a societal perspective. The total annual cost per patient ranged between $US463 and 58,616. Costs varied across studies and countries, mainly because of differences regarding the inclusion of costs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), the range of cost items included, the methodological choices such as approaches used to estimate healthcare resource consumption, and the inclusion of informal care and productivity losses. Characteristics and methodologies of the included studies varied considerably, especially regarding the perspective adopted, cost data specification, and reporting of costs per severity levels. The total costs increased with greater disease severity. The cost ratios between different levels of MS severity within studies were relatively stable; costs were around 1-1.5 times higher for moderate versus mild MS and about two times higher for severe versus mild MS. MS drug costs were the main cost driver for less severe MS, whereas the proportion of direct non-medical costs and indirect costs increased with greater disease severity.ConclusionMS places a huge economic burden on healthcare systems and societies in LMICs. Methodological differences and substantial variations in terms of absolute costs were found between studies, which made comparison of studies challenging. However, the cost ratios across different levels of MS severity were similar, making comparisons between studies by disease severity feasible. Cost drivers were mainly DMTs and relapse treatments, and this was consistent across studies. Yet, the distribution of cost components varied with disease severity.

Project description:BackgroundA significant number of women in low and middle income countries (L-MICs) who need any family planning, experience a lack in access to modern effective methods. This study was conducted to review potential cost effectiveness of scaling up family planning interventions in these regions from the published literatures and assess their implication for policy and future research.Study designA systematic review was performed in several electronic databases i.e Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Popline, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), EBSCOHost, and The Cochrane Library. Articles reporting full economic evaluations of strategies to improve family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, published between 1995 until 2015 were eligible for inclusion. Data was synthesized and analyzed using a narrative approach and the reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.ResultsFrom 920 references screened, 9 studies were eligible for inclusion. Six references assessed cost effectiveness of improving family planning interventions in one or more L-MICs, while the rest assessed costs and consequences of integrating family planning and HIV services, concerning sub-Saharan Africa. Assembled evidence suggested that improving family planning interventions is cost effective in a variety of L-MICs as measured against accepted international cost effectiveness benchmarks. In areas with high HIV prevalence, integrating family planning and HIV services can be efficient and cost effective; however the evidence is only supported by a very limited number of studies. The major drivers of cost effectiveness were cost of increasing coverage, effectiveness of the interventions and country-specific factors.ConclusionImproving family planning interventions in low and middle income countries appears to be cost-effective. Additional economic evaluation studies with improved reporting quality are necessary to generate further evidence on costs, cost-effectiveness, and affordability, and to support increased funding and investments in family planning programs.

Project description:IntroductionInfertility, a condition of the reproductive system, affects millions of individuals and couples worldwide. Despite infertility treatment's existence, it is largely unavailable and inaccessible in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the prohibitive costs compounded by an absence of financing. Previous systematic reviews have shown that there is scanty information in LMICs on out-of-pocket (OOP) payments for infertility treatment. This protocol outlines the methodological approach and analytical process to appraise the extent of economic burden due to payments for infertility care services in LMICs.Method and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach, we will primarily search for articles indexed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and PsycINFO databases. Grey literature from relevant organisations' virtual libraries shall also be searched. Backward and forward searches on the articles selected will also be done. Quantitative studies on infertility treatment costs from LMICs across the world regions within the last 20 years will be considered. The primary outcome of interest shall include OOP payments, catastrophic health expenditure and direct costs for infertility services. Conversely, informal payments and indirect costs related to infertility treatments shall be considered as secondary outcomes. Integrated quality Criteria for Review Of Multiple Study designs will be used to assess the quality of the studies included in the review. Meta-analysis shall be considered if sufficient studies identified are homogenous in characteristics. Also, the review shall analyse the average cost of infertility treatment against the respective countries' economic indicators like gross domestic product per capita if data permit.Ethics and disseminationResearch and ethics approval will not be required given this will be a review of published articles on the subject. The findings shall be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation to the WHO and its partners.Prospero registration numberCRD42020199312.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of hepatitis B screening economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries.

Publications

A systematic review of hepatitis B screening economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets