Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. METHODS:We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. DISCUSSION:Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591 .

SUBMITTER: Elliott J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6436234 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Elliott Jesse J McCoy Bláthnaid B Clifford Tammy T Potter Beth K BK Skidmore Becky B Wells George A GA Coyle Doug D

Systematic reviews 20190327 1

<h4>Background</h4>Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-makin ...[more]

PMID: 30917869

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEpilepsy affects millions of children worldwide, with 20-40% experiencing drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are recommended for epilepsy surgery evaluation and may benefit from surgical management. However, many patients live with DRE for multiple years prior to surgical epilepsy referral or treatment or are never referred at all.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe factors associated with referral for epilepsy surgery in the USA, in order to identify disparities in DRE, characterize why they may exist, and recognize areas for improvement.MethodsPediatric patients diagnosed with DRE between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2020 were identified from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) Database. Patients treated with antiseizure medications (ASMs) only, ASMs plus vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and ASMs plus cranial epilepsy surgery were studied regarding access to epilepsy surgery and disparities in care. This study used chi-square tests to determine associations between treatment time and preoperative factors. Preoperative factors studied included epilepsy treatment type, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance type, geographic region, patient type, epilepsy type, and presence of pediatric complex chronic conditions (PCCCs).ResultsA total of 18,292 patients were identified; 10,240 treated with ASMs, 5019 treated with ASMs + VNS, and 3033 treated with ASMs + cranial epilepsy surgery. Sex was not found to significantly vary among groups. There was significant variation in age, census region, race/ethnicity, patient type, presence of PCCCs, diagnosis, and insurance (p < 0.001). Those treated surgically, either with VNS or cranial epilepsy surgery, were 2 years older than those medically treated. Additionally, those medically treated were less likely to be living in the Midwest (25.46%), identified as non-Hispanic white (51.78%), have a focal/partial epilepsy diagnosis (8.74%), and be privately insured (35.82%).ConclusionsWe studied a large administrative US database examining variables associated with surgical epilepsy evaluation and management. We found significant variation in treatment associated with age, US census region, race/ethnicity, patient type, presence of PCCCs, diagnosis, and health insurance type. We believe that these disparities in care are related to access and social determinants of health, and we encourage focused outreach strategies to mitigate these disparities to broaden access and improve outcomes in children in the USA with DRE.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Project description:IntroductionPreoperative functional capacity is an important predictor of postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' functional capacity before surgery to improve postoperative outcomes. As prolonged hospital stay and postoperative complications present an avoidable use of healthcare resources, prehabilitation might also save costs.The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation programmes for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. The results will be useful to inform decisions about the implementation of prehabilitation programmes and the design of future economic evaluations of prehabilitation programmes.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for full or partial economic evaluations of preoperative prehabilitation programmes conducted in any population compared with usual preoperative care. Studies will be included regardless of the type, design and perspective of the economic evaluation, and their publication year, language or status. Initial searches were performed between 30 April and 4 May 2020.Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the included studies' risk of bias and methodological quality will initially be performed by two independent reviewers and, if agreement was sufficiently high, by one reviewer. We will extract data regarding the included studies' basic characteristics, economic evaluation methods and cost-effectiveness results.A narrative synthesis will be performed. The primary endpoint will be cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses. We will discuss heterogeneity between the studies and assess the risk of publication bias. The certainty of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as the systematic review will not involve human participants. We plan to present our findings at scientific conferences, pass them on to relevant stakeholder organisations and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42020182813.

Project description:BackgroundKidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a lifesaving but costly treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The objective of this study was to review full economic evaluations comparing KRT modalities specified as hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation (KT) for patients with ESKD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature from PubMed, Embase, EconLit (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and CRD Health Technology Assessment Database from inception until 5 January 2020. Full economic evaluations were included if they compared three forms of KRT specified as PD, HD, and KT. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsTen studies were identified in the review. The majority of the studies were model-based evaluations and included a cost-utility analysis. Four studies were conducted from a public healthcare perspective, three from a societal perspective, and three from a third-party payer perspective. None of the studies adequately addressed all the applicable items of the CHEERS checklist. The most infrequently reported items were characterizing heterogeneity, target population, and characterizing uncertainty. There is a lack of studies that conduct from a societal perspective and take into account characterizing heterogeneity. All included studies indicate that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, with either a dominant position over HD and PD or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. The majority of studies suggest that PD is less costly and offers comparable or better health outcomes than HD.ConclusionsOur systematic review suggests that KT is the most cost-effective KRT modality, but there is no firm conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of HD and PD. Further economic evaluations can be conducted from a societal perspective and detail the evidence for subsets of patients with different characteristics.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Project description:IntroductionChronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has profound quality of life and economic consequences for individuals, their family, formal services and wider society. Little is known about which therapeutic interventions are more cost-effective.ObjectiveA systematic review was carried out to identify and critically appraise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CFS/ME interventions.MethodsThe review protocol was prespecified (PROSPERO: CRD42018118731). Searches were carried out across two databases-MEDLINE (1946-2020) and EMBASE (1974-2020). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles of full economic evaluations examining CFS/ME interventions were included. Trial- and/or model-based economic evaluations were eligible. Data extraction and screening were carried out independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the economic evaluation and trial were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist (CHEC-list) and Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, respectively. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the economic evidence for interventions for adults and children in primary and secondary care settings.ResultsTen economic evaluations, all based on data derived from randomised controlled trials, met our eligibility criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was evaluated across five studies, making it the most commonly evaluated intervention. There was evidence from three trials to support CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, findings on CBT were not uniform, suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be context-specific. A wide array of other interventions were evaluated in adults, including limited evidence from two trials supporting the cost effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET). Just one study assessed intervention options for children. Our review highlighted the importance of informal care costs and productivity losses in the evaluation of CFS/ME interventions.ConclusionsWe identified a limited patchwork of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for CFS/ME. Evidence supports CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, cost-effectiveness may depend on the duration and frequency of sessions. Limited evidence supports the cost effectiveness of GET. Key weaknesses in the literature included small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. Further research is needed on pharmacological interventions and therapies for children.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of cannabinoids for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets